Figure A5-14 Annual Hydrograph at KL-H1 Hydrometric ...backriverproject.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/... · Back River Project Environmental Baseline Study

Date (dd/mm/yy)

04/0

1/12

04/0

8/12

04/1

5/12

04/2

2/12

04/2

9/12

05/0

6/12

05/1

3/12

05/2

0/12

05/2

7/12

06/0

3/12

06/1

0/12

06/1

7/12

06/2

4/12

07/0

1/12

07/0

8/12

07/1

5/12

07/2

2/12

07/2

9/12

08/0

5/12

08/1

2/12

08/1

9/12

08/2

6/12

09/0

2/12

09/0

9/12

09/1

6/12

09/2

3/12

09/3

0/12

10/0

7/12

10/1

4/12

Dai

ly D

isch

arge

(m3 /s

)D

aily Precipitation (mm

)

0

10

20

30

Annual Hydrograph at KL-H1Hydrometric Monitoring Station, 2012

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

PROJECT # ILLUSTRATION # October 26, 2012833-002-02 a38388f

Figure A5-14

Figure A5-14

Goose Met PrecipitationDaily DischargeEstimated Daily Discharge

Drainage Area = 24.0 km²

Date (dd/mm/yy)

04/0

1/12

04/0

8/12

04/1

5/12

04/2

2/12

04/2

9/12

05/0

6/12

05/1

3/12

05/2

0/12

05/2

7/12

06/0

3/12

06/1

0/12

06/1

7/12

06/2

4/12

07/0

1/12

07/0

8/12

07/1

5/12

07/2

2/12

07/2

9/12

08/0

5/12

08/1

2/12

08/1

9/12

08/2

6/12

09/0

2/12

09/0

9/12

09/1

6/12

09/2

3/12

09/3

0/12

10/0

7/12

10/1

4/12

Dai

ly D

isch

arge

(m3 /s

)D

aily Precipitation (mm

)

0

10

20

30

Annual Hydrograph at KL-H2Hydrometric Monitoring Station, 2012

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

PROJECT # ILLUSTRATION # November 6, 2012833-002-02 a38389f

Figure A5-15

Figure A5-15

George Met PrecipitationDaily DischargeEstimated Daily Discharge

Drainage Area = 9.66 km²

BACK RIVER PROJECT 2012 Hydrology Baseline Report

Appendix 6 Snow Course Survey

G:\mtaylor\public\Snow Course Templates\

BEARING 110 ASPECT. WNW

MAP No. 1 DATE SURVEYED April 25 2012

DATE ESTD. April 25 2012 Snow Course: SC-01 Goose Property Back River

DRAINAGE Propellor

UTM Zone 13

436502E 7279764N

REMARKS


BEARING 18 ASPECT. SSW



DRAINAGE Swan Lake

UTM Zone 13

420367E 7274271N

REMARKS


BEARING 229 ASPECT. NE

MAP No. 3 DATE SURVEYED

April 24 2012


DRAINAGE Moby Lake

UTM Zone 13

422265E 7265136N

REMARKS


BEARING 90 ASPECT. Flat

MAP No. 4

DATE SURVEYED

April 24 2012


DRAINAGE Llama Lake

UTM Zone 13

428855E 7271553N

REMARKS Flat



MAP No. 5

DATE SURVEYED April 24 2012


DRAINAGE Goose Lake

UTM Zone 13

435325E 7269732N

REMARKS Flat



MAP No. 6



DRAINAGE Reference Lake B

UTM Zone 13

442629E 7257810N

REMARKS Flat


BEARING 0 ASPECT. SE

MAP No. 7



DRAINAGE South of Wolf

UTM Zone 13

431670E 7261290N

REMARKS





DRAINAGE Llama Lake

UTM Zone 13

433071E 7269498N

REMARKS Steep




DATE ESTD. April 20 2012 Snow Course: SC-09 George Property Back River

DRAINAGE George Lake

UTM Zone 13

386892E 7316137N

REMARKS Steep

500





DRAINAGE George Lake

UTM Zone 13

389735E 7312798N

REMARKS Flat


BEARING 56 ASPECT. SW



DRAINAGE Komatic Lake

UTM Zone 13

390220E 7310240N

REMARKS





DRAINAGE Dragon Lake

UTM Zone 13

385971E 7312414N

REMARKS Flat

Back River Project Environmental Baseline Study (Project no. 833-002-02)

SNOW SURVEY FIELD DATA SHEET

Snow Course No. SC-01 2012 4 25

Snow Course Name:

Observer's Name:

Number of Driving Wrench Used: Yes: X Scale No.:

Tubes Used: 2 No:

With Dirt Plug Without Dirt Plug

1 31 27 31 79 70 9 33

2 48 46 43 86 70 16 35

3 30 29 27 79 70 9 31

4 51 51 50 88 70 18 35

5 46 42 39 83 70 13 31

6 53 50 52 88 70 18 36

7 34 34 33 82 70 12 35

8 24 19 22 76 70 6 32

9 25 22 25 77 70 7 32

10 37 37 37 83 70 13 35

Total 357 121

Average 36 12.1 34

Station

Number

Core Length

(cm)

Weight of Tube

and Core (cm)

Snow Depth (cm)

British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection- Environmental Protection Division- Flood Hazard/River Forecast Centre

Snow-Water

Equivalent (cm)

Density

(%)

Year Month Day

4S141

Weight Tube Only

Before Sampling (cm)

C.Hall

Back River Project - Goose Property

Page 1 of 2

9:10 a.m. 10:05 a.m.

Time sampling began p.m. ended p.m.

A. Weather Conditions at Snow Course

Freezing X Thawing Temp -14.4 ˚C

Blowing Calm X

Skies: Clear X Partly Cloudy Overcast

Precipitation: None X Raining Snowing

B. Surface Snow Conditions at Snow Course

Fresh fallen snow depth 0 cm

Wet Dry X

Soft Crusted X

Support: None Person on skies/snowshoes Person on foot X

Serious Drifting: No X Yes* Which Stations

Evidence of

oversnow traffic: Yes* No X

C. Sampling Conditions

Moderately Very

Easy Difficult X Difficult

Ground Reached

on all Samples: Yes X No*

Ice Layers: In snowpack X On ground X

Ground under snow: Dry X Damp Wet Frozen X

D. General Condition en Route

Snow line elevationn/a metres

Thaw: None X Sunny slopes General

Bridged

Small streams: with snow X Open Clear Muddy

*Describe fully under remarks

E. Remarks:

Please complete in field or as soon after snow sampling as possible.

Page 2 of 2




Snow Course Name:

Observer's Name:


Tubes Used: 3 No:


1 104 101 97 108 71 37 37

2 195 192 190 192 113 79 41

3 30 26 29 81 71 10 38

4 63 60 50 90 71 19 32

5 52 51 50 91 71 20 39

6 46 42 45 88 71 17 40

7 21 19 19 78 71 7 37

8 16 15 14 76 71 5 33

9 10 8 10 74 71 3 38

10 21 16 20 76 71 5 31

Total 530 202

Average 53 20.2 37

Station

Number

Core Length

(cm)

Weight of Tube

and Core (cm)

Snow Depth (cm)

British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection- Environmental Protection Division- Flood Hazard/River Forecast

Centre

Snow-Water

Equivalent (cm)

Density

(%)

Year Month Day

4S141

Weight Tube Only


C.Hall


Page 1 of 2

a.m. a.m.

Time sampling began 1:45 p.m. ended 3:20 p.m.


Freezing X Thawing Temp -14 ˚C

Blowing X Calm





Wet Dry X

Soft Crusted X



Evidence of



Moderately Very


Ground Reached


Ice Layers: In snowpack X On ground

Ground under snow: Dry X Damp Wet Frozen


Snow line elevation 0 metres


Bridged



E. Remarks:


Page 2 of 2




Snow Course Name:

Observer's Name:


Tubes Used: 2 No:


1 60 57 59 90 71 19 33

2 84 80 80 96 71 25 31

3 47 44 47 88 71 17 39

4 47 44 42 84 71 13 30

5 47 42 44 86 71 15 36

6 8 3 8 72 71 1 33

7 43 43 37 85 71 14 33

8 18 15 18 76 71 5 33

9 60 60 55 92 71 21 35

10 78 73 73 96 71 25 34

Total461 155

Average46 15.5 34

Station

Number

Core Length

(cm)

Weight of Tube

and Core (cm)

Snow Depth (cm)


Centre

Snow-Water

Equivalent (cm)

Density

(%)

Year Month Day

4S141

Weight Tube Only


C.Hall


Page 1 of 2

a.m. a.m.




Blowing Calm X





Wet Dry X

Soft Crusted X



Evidence of



Moderately Very


Ground Reached



Ground under snow: Dry Damp Wet Frozen X




Bridged



E. Remarks:


Page 2 of 2




Snow Course Name:

Observer's Name:


Tubes Used: 2 No:


1 51 48 49 87 71 16 33

2 80 80 79 100 72 28 35

3 42 41 42 83 71 12 29

4 69 69 65 94 71 23 33

5 111 107 111 112 71 41 38

6 67 67 65 94 71 23 34

7 12 10 12 74 71 3 30

8 39 35 36 81 71 10 29

9 31 27 28 79 71 8 30

10 30 26 28 81 71 10 38

Total 510 174

Average 51 17.4 33

Station

Number

Core Length

(cm)

Weight of Tube

and Core (cm)

Snow Depth (cm)


Centre

Snow-Water

Equivalent (cm)

Density

(%)

Year Month Day

4S141

Weight Tube Only


C.Hall


Page 1 of 2

9:45 a.m. 11:07 a.m.




Blowing X Calm





Wet Dry X

Soft Crusted X



Evidence of



Moderately Very


Ground Reached







Bridged



E. Remarks:


Page 2 of 2




Snow Course Name:

Observer's Name:


Tubes Used: 2 No:


1 43 42 43 84 70 14 33

2 68 67 68 92 70 22 33

3 69 66 63 92 70 22 33

4 74 70 73 93 70 23 33

5 54 50 49 84 70 14 28

6 16 13 14 74 70 4 31

7 40 38 40 83 70 13 34

8 56 51 53 89 70 19 37

9 33 30 32 80 70 10 33

10 50 50 43 86 70 16 32

Total 477 157

Average 48 15.7 33

Station

Number

Core Length

(cm)

Weight of Tube

and Core (cm)

Snow Depth (cm)


Centre

Snow-Water

Equivalent (cm)

Density

(%)

Year Month Day

4S141

Weight Tube Only


C.Hall


Page 1 of 2

a.m. a.m.




Blowing Calm X





Wet Dry X

Soft Crusted X



Evidence of



Moderately Very

Easy X Difficult Difficult

Ground Reached



Ground under snow: Dry Damp Wet Frozen X




Bridged



E. Remarks:


Page 2 of 2




Snow Course Name:

Observer's Name:


Tubes Used: 2 No:


1 53 48 47 86 71 15 31

2 71 69 65 94 71 23 33

3 50 50 48 88 71 17 34

4 43 39 42 84 71 13 33

5 39 37 39 83 71 12 32

6 38 34 38 82 71 11 32

7 66 66 64 96 71 25 38

8 75 72 69 95 71 24 33

9 77 77 75 99 71 28 36

10 72 69 70 95 71 24 35

Total 561 192

Average 56 19.2 34

Station

Number

Core Length

(cm)

Weight of Tube

and Core (cm)

Snow Depth (cm)


Centre

Snow-Water

Equivalent (cm)

Density

(%)

Year Month Day

4S141

Weight Tube Only


C.Hall


Page 1 of 2

9:45 a.m. 11:07 a.m.




Blowing X Calm





Wet Dry X

Soft Crusted X



Evidence of



Moderately Very


Ground Reached







Bridged



E. Remarks:


Page 2 of 2




Snow Course Name:

Observer's Name:


Tubes Used: 3 No:


1 143 140 142 169 113 56 40

2 49 46 48 132 113 19 41

3 57 54 54 134 113 21 39

4 50 47 50 130 113 17 36

5 63 61 63 135 113 22 36

6 96 96 94 151 113 38 40

7 128 126 117 162 113 49 39

8 98 98 98 152 113 39 40

9 71 71 68 139 113 26 37

10 52 50 51 134 113 21 42

Total 789 308

Average 79 30.8 39

Station

Number

Core Length

(cm)

Weight of Tube

and Core (cm)

Snow Depth (cm)


Centre

Snow-Water

Equivalent (cm)

Density

(%)

Year Month Day

4S141

Weight Tube Only


C.Hall


Page 1 of 2

a.m. a.m.




Blowing X Calm





Wet Dry X

Soft Crusted X



Evidence of



Moderately Very


Ground Reached







Bridged



E. Remarks:


Page 2 of 2




Snow Course Name:

Observer's Name:


Tubes Used: 4 No:


1 88 81 75 185 154 31 38

2 51 58 51 175 154 21 36

3 44 40 38 168 154 14 35

4 37 32 32 166 154 12 38

5 63 60 61 175 154 21 35

6 135 135 125 204 154 50 37

7 293 292 283 280 154 126 43

8 163 160 155 216 154 62 39

9 17 17 17 161 154 7 41

10 28 25 28 163 154 9 36

Total 900 353

Average 90 35.3 38

Station

Number

Core Length

(cm)

Weight of Tube

and Core (cm)

Snow Depth (cm)

British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection- Environmental Protection Division- Flood Hazard/River

Forecast Centre

Snow-Water

Equivalent (cm)

Density

(%)

Year Month Day

4S141

Weight Tube Only


C.Hall


Page 1 of 2

a.m. a.m.




Blowing Calm X





Wet Dry X

Soft Crusted X



Evidence of



Moderately Very


Ground Reached


Ice Layers: In snowpack X On ground X

Ground under snow: Dry X Damp Wet Frozen X




Bridged



E. Remarks:


Page 2 of 2




Snow Course Name:

Observer's Name:


Tubes Used: 3 No:


1 8 6 8 Container & Core* Container** Core*** n/a

2 37 37 37 Container & Core* Container* Core*** n/a








10 158 156 157 191 56 135 n/a

Total 334 135

Average 33 13.5 40.4

*Weight of bulk sampling container and total snow cores sampled

**Weight of bulk sampling container

***Weight of total snow cores sampled

Station

NumberCore Length

(cm)

Weight of Tube

and Core (cm)

Snow Depth (cm)


Centre

Snow-Water

Equivalent (cm)

Density

(%)

Year Month Day

4S141

Weight Tube Only


C.Hall

Back River Project - George Property

Page 1 of 2

9:25 a.m. 10:30 a.m.




Blowing Calm X





Wet Dry X

Soft Crusted X


Serious Drifting: No Yes* X Which Stations 10

Evidence of



Moderately Very


Ground Reached


Ice Layers: In snowpack On ground





Bridged



E. Remarks: Scouring on ridges and drifting in the low areas.


Page 2 of 2




Snow Course Name:

Observer's Name:


Tubes Used: 4 No:


1 18 17 17 Container & Core* Container** Core*** n/a









10 33 27 32 296 56 240 n/a

Total 845 240

Average 85 24 28.4

*Weight of bulk sampling container and total snow cores sampled

**Weight of bulk sampling container

***Weight of total snow cores sampled

Station

Number

Core Length

(cm)

Weight of Tube

and Core (cm)

Snow Depth (cm)


Centre

Snow-Water

Equivalent (cm)

Density

(%)

Year Month Day

4S141

Weight Tube Only


C.Hall


Page 1 of 2

a.m. a.m.




Blowing Calm X

Skies: Clear Partly Cloudy X Overcast




Wet Dry X

Soft Crusted X


Serious Drifting: No Yes* X Which Stations 2, 4 and 5

Evidence of



Moderately Very

Easy Difficult Difficult X

Ground Reached

on all Samples: Yes No* X






Bridged



E. Remarks: Scouring on ridges and drifting in the low areas.

Ground not reached at station 4 but sample was included in the bulk

sample (probing adjacent to the sample indicated the ground was almost reached but ice

layers prevented digging in any further).


Page 2 of 2




Snow Course Name:

Observer's Name:


Tubes Used: 4 No:


1 28 23 26 161 154 7 30

2 81 81 79 185 154 31 38

3 58 58 57 177 154 23 40

4 25 24 23 162 154 8 33

5 27 20 25 160 154 6 30

6 5 5 5 156 154 2 40

7 12 8 11 157 154 3 38

8 9 6 7 156 154 2 33

9 62 60 62 178 154 24 40

10 46 43 45 170 154 16 37

Total 328 122

Average 33 12.2 36

Station

Number

Core Length

(cm)

Weight of Tube

and Core (cm)

Snow Depth (cm)


Centre

Snow-Water

Equivalent (cm)

Density

(%)

Year Month Day

4S141

Weight Tube Only


C.Hall


Page 1 of 2

9:20 a.m. 10:40 a.m.




Blowing X Calm





Wet Dry X

Soft Crusted X



Evidence of



Moderately Very


Ground Reached







Bridged



E. Remarks:


Page 2 of 2




Snow Course Name:

Observer's Name:


Tubes Used: 2 No:


1 16 14 15 66 61 5 36

2 59 59 53 83 61 22 37

3 103 103 101 105 61 44 43

4 60 56 55 80 61 19 34

5 75 72 74 90 61 29 40

6 56 53 55 83 61 22 42

7 76 76 75 93 61 32 42

8 13 9 13 64 61 3 33

9 17 12 17 66 61 5 42

10 48 45 43 79 61 18 40

Total 499 199

Average 50 19.9 39

Station

Number

Core Length

(cm)

Weight of Tube

and Core (cm)

Snow Depth (cm)


Centre

Snow-Water

Equivalent (cm)

Density

(%)

Year Month Day

4S141

Weight Tube Only


C.Hall


Page 1 of 2

a.m. a.m.




Blowing X Calm





Wet Dry X

Soft Crusted X



Evidence of



Moderately Very


Ground Reached







Bridged



E. Remarks:


Page 2 of 2

BACK RIVER PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Statement Supporting Volume 6:

Freshwater Environment

Appendix V6-1C Back River Project: 2013 Hydrology Baseline Report

January 2014Rescan Environmental Services Ltd., an ERM companyRescan Building, Sixth Floor - 1111 West Hastings StreetVancouver, BC Canada V6E 2J3Tel: (604) 689-9460 Fax: (604) 687-4277


Sabina Gold & Silver Corp.

BACK RIVER PROJECT 2013 HYDROLOGY BASELINE REPORT

January 2014

Project #0194096-0002

Citation:

Rescan. 2014. Back River Project: 2013 Hydrology Baseline Report. Prepared for Sabina Gold & Silver Corp. by

Rescan Environmental Services Ltd., an ERM company.

Prepared for:

Sabina Gold & Silver Corp.

Prepared by:

Rescan Environmental Services Ltd., an ERM company

Vancouver, British Columbia


Executive Summary

SABINA GOLD & SILVER CORP. i

Executive Summary

The Back River Project (the Project) lies in the West Kitikmeot region of Nunavut and is situated within

the continuous permafrost zone of the continental Canadian Arctic. The baseline work in 2013 focused

on the Goose Property and the George Property areas to support the permitting of the Project and the

submission of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

The 2013 monitoring network on the Goose Property included 15 hydrometric stations, monitoring a total

drainage area of 209.9 km2. The monitoring network on the George Property comprised 8 hydrometric

stations, monitoring a total drainage area of 301.8 km2. The hydrometric networks were operated

through the open water season from May 31, 2013 to October 3, 2013. During this time period, continuous

time series water level (stage) data were collected at each streamflow monitoring station and more than

100 manual discharge measurements were completed. Based on the stage and discharge data collected,

stage-discharge rating equations were determined and annual hydrographs produced.

The annual hydrographs in 2013 were characterized by snowmelt-driven high flows during the spring

freshet. A snowmelt-driven high flow event occurred in each of the hydrographs during the freshet period

in late May to early June in most basins. One rainfall-driven high flow event occurred in early September.

Daily peak flows ranged from 0.11 m3/s at TIA-H1 to 9.50 m3/s at PL-H1 in the Goose Property area and

from 0.44 m3/s at LY-H1 to 16.62 m3/s at LG-H1 in the George Property area.

Volumetric outflows from monitored drainages were generally a function of drainage area. In the Goose

Property area, the minimum volumetric outflows were observed at TIA-H1 (drainage area = 5.0 km2)

which had a total annual water output of 0.17 million m3. The maximum annual volumetric output was

20.38 million m3 at PL-H1 (drainage area = 204.6 km2). In the George Property area, the minimum

volumetric outflows were observed at MC-H1 (drainage area = 10.8 km2) which had a total annual water

output of 0.64 million m3. The maximum annual volumetric output was 35.83 million m3 at LG-H1

(drainage area = 271.1 km2).

Average annual runoff was 100 mm for the Goose Property area (PL-H1) and 107 mm for the George

Property area (KL-H1). Variable drainage divides between the sub-watersheds increased the

uncertainty in runoff estimates for the smaller sub-watersheds. In general, 2013 was a drier year than

2011 and 2012.

Generally, the maximum monthly runoff occurred in June (67% in PL-H1 and 74% in KL-H1 which

represent the Goose and George Property areas, respectively). The exceptions are EL-H1 and WR-H1

where the maximum monthly runoff was in September. The concentration of the annual runoff in June

was greater than that of 2011 and less than that of 2012.


Acknowledgements

SABINA GOLD & SILVER CORP. iii

Acknowledgements

This Report was prepared by Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. an ERM company for Sabina Gold and

Silver Corp. (Sabina). Field data collection was conducted by Eli Heyman (B.Sc.), Jeff Anderson (M.Sc.),

Byeong Kim and Merle Keefe (Sabina). The report was prepared and written by Ali Naghibi (Ph.D.,

P.Eng.) and Eli Heyman (B.Sc.), and technically reviewed by David Luzi (M.Sc.). Michael Soloducha

(B.Sc.), Ted Lewis (Ph.D.), and Natasha Cowie (M.Sc.) provided technical support. The project was

managed by Deborah Muggli (Ph.D., M.Sc., R.P.Bio.). Field assistance and on-site logistical support

were gratefully provided by Sabina personnel, and Northern Air Support provided helicopter services.


Table of Contents

SABINA GOLD & SILVER CORP. v

BACK RIVER PROJECT 2013 HYDROLOGY BASELINE REPORT

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ i

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... iii

Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... v

List of Figures ................................................................................................... vi

List of Tables .................................................................................................... vii

List of Plates ................................................................................................... viii

List of Appendices ............................................................................................. viii

Glossary and Abbreviations ............................................................................................. ix

1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 1-1

2. Hydrological Setting .......................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Arctic Hydrology ..................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Available Regional Hydrologic Data .............................................................. 2-3

2.3 Study Area ............................................................................................ 2-3

3. Methodology .................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Hydrometric Monitoring Network ................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Hydrometric Monitoring Station Setups ......................................................... 3-3

3.3 Discharge Measurements ........................................................................... 3-4

3.3.1 Current Velocity Measurements......................................................... 3-5

3.3.2 ADCP Measurements ...................................................................... 3-6

3.4 Hydrometric Station Surveys ...................................................................... 3-6

3.4.1 Levelling Surveys .......................................................................... 3-6

3.4.2 Channel Geometry Surveys .............................................................. 3-7

3.5 Stage – Discharge Relations ........................................................................ 3-7

3.6 Daily Discharge Hydrographs ...................................................................... 3-8

3.7 Volumetric Outflow ................................................................................. 3-9

3.8 Hydrologic Indices ................................................................................... 3-9

3.8.1 Annual Runoff .............................................................................. 3-9

3.8.2 Monthly Runoff Distribution ............................................................. 3-9

3.8.3 Mean Annual Discharge ................................................................... 3-9

3.8.4 Annual Peak and Low Flow .............................................................. 3-9

2013 HYDROLOGY BASELINE REPORT

vi RESCAN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD., AN ERM COMPANY | PROJ#0194096-0002 | REV A.1 | JANUARY 2014

4. Results ........................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Discharge Measurement Summary ................................................................ 4-1

4.2 Hydrometric Station Surveys ...................................................................... 4-4

4.2.1 Levelling Surveys .......................................................................... 4-4

4.2.2 Channel Geometry Surveys .............................................................. 4-4

4.3 Stage-discharge Rating Curves .................................................................... 4-5

4.4 Annual Hydrographs ................................................................................. 4-7

4.5 Hydrologic Indicies ................................................................................ 4-13

4.5.1 Annual Runoff ............................................................................ 4-13

4.5.2 Mean Annual Discharge ................................................................. 4-15

4.5.3 Monthly Runoff Distribution ........................................................... 4-15

4.5.4 Annual Peak and Low Flow ............................................................ 4-16

5. Summary ........................................................................................................ 5-1

References ............................................................................................................... R-1

List of Figures

FIGURE PAGE

Figure 1-1. Back River Project Location ............................................................................ 1-2

Figure 2.1-1. Theoretical Typical Annual Flow Hydrograph for a Small Arctic Watershed ................ 2-2

Figure 2.2-1. Regional Hydrometric Stations Relevant to the Study Area .................................... 2-5

Figure 2.2-2. Monthly Distribution of Annual Runoff at Regional and Project Stations .................... 2-7

Figure 2.3-1. Study Area Drainage Basins – Goose Property Area .............................................. 2-9

Figure 2.3-2. Study Area Drainage Basins – George Property Area ........................................... 2-11

Figure 4.4-1. Annual Unit Hydrographs of Hydrometric Monitoring Stations in 2013 - Goose

Property Area .................................................................................................. 4-8

Figure 4.4-2. Annual Unit Hydrographs of Hydrometric Monitoring Stations in 2013 - George

Property Area .................................................................................................. 4-9

Figure 4.4-3. 2013 Daily Discharge Percentiles for Hydrometric Stations within the Goose

Property Area ................................................................................................ 4-11

Figure 4.4-4. 2013 Daily Discharge Percentiles for Hydrometric Stations within the George

Property Area ................................................................................................ 4-12

Figure 4.5-1. Monthly Runoff Distribution - Goose Property Area ........................................... 4-17

Figure 4.5-2. Monthly Runoff Distribution - George Property Area .......................................... 4-18

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SABINA GOLD & SILVER CORP. vii

List of Tables

TABLE PAGE

Table 2.2-1. Regional Water Survey of Canada (WSC) Stations Relevant to the Study Area .............. 2-4

Table 3.1-1. Hydrometric Monitoring Stations in the Goose Property Area .................................. 3-1

Table 3.1-2. Hydrometric Monitoring Stations in the George Property Area ................................ 3-2

Table 4.1-1. Summary of Discharge Measurements in the Goose Property Area in 2013 .................. 4-1

Table 4.1-2. Summary of Discharge Measurements in the George Property Area in 2013 ................. 4-3

Table 4.3-1. Summary of 2013 Rating Equations for the Hydrometric Monitoring Stations in Goose

Property Area .................................................................................................. 4-5

Table 4.3-2. Summary of 2013 Rating Equations for the Hydrometric Monitoring Stations in

George Property Area ......................................................................................... 4-6

Table 4.4-1. Regression Equations Used to Extend the Hydrographs for Stations in Goose Property

Area ............................................................................................................ 4-10

Table 4.4-2. Regression Equations Used to Extend the Hydrographs for Stations in George

Property Area ................................................................................................ 4-10

Table 4.4-3. 2013 Volumetric Water Yield in Millions of Cubic Meters (million m3) for

Hydrometric Stations in the Goose Property Area ..................................................... 4-13

Table 4.4-4. 2013 Volumetric Water Yield in Millions of Cubic Meters (million m3) for

Hydrometric Stations in the George Property Area ................................................... 4-13

Table 4.5-1. 2013 Estimated Annual Runoff and Mean Annual Discharge in the Goose Property

Area ............................................................................................................ 4-14

Table 4.5-2. 2013 Estimated Annual Runoff and Mean Annual Discharge in the George Property

Area ............................................................................................................ 4-15

Table 4.5-3. 2013 Runoff Distribution in the Goose Property Area .......................................... 4-16

Table 4.5-4. 2013 Runoff Distribution in the George Property Area ........................................ 4-16

Table 4.5-5. Estimated 2013 Daily Peak Flows and Peak Unit Yields in the Goose Property Area ..... 4-19

Table 4.5-6. Estimated 2013 Daily Peak Flows and Peak Unit Yields in the George Property Area .... 4-19

Table 4.5-7. 2013 Observed Daily Minimum Flows (June through September) in the Goose

Property Area ................................................................................................ 4-20

Table 4.5-8. 2013 Observed Daily Minimum Flows (June through September) in the George

Property Area ................................................................................................ 4-20


viii RESCAN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD., AN ERM COMPANY | PROJ#0194096-0002 | REV A.1 | JANUARY 2014

List of Plates

PLATE PAGE

Plate 2.3-1. High angle oblique view showing the extensive lake coverage and low relief

hummocky topography typical of the Goose and the George Property areas.

This photograph was taken of the George Property area on July 14, 2013. ........................ 2-4

Plate 2.3-2. Looking north along the outflow from Esker Pond on the George Property. Note the

relatively low relief topography, bedrock outcrops and low tundra vegetation typical of

the region. June 4 2013. ..................................................................................... 2-8

Plate 3.2-1. Photographs illustrating the hydrometric monitoring station design. ......................... 3-4

Plate 3.3-1. Velocity-area discharge measurements at hydrometric station KL-H2 using a handheld

current velocity meter. September 14, 2013. ............................................................. 3-5

Plate 3.3-2. Discharge measurements at hydrometric station PL-H1 using an Acoustic Doppler

Current Profiler (ADCP). Photograph taken on July 14, 2012. ........................................ 3-6

Plate 4.2-1. Station set-up at REFB-H1 in 2013. Rebar was used in an attempt to limit vertical

drift of the transducer into the soft bed along the channel reach. June 6, 2013. ................ 4-5

Plate 4.5-1. Channel division of the Rascal Lake outflow showing the division of the channel due

to low relief. The indicated branches flow past different hydrometric stations before

entering Goose Lake. July 19, 2013. ..................................................................... 4-14

List of Appendices

Appendix 1. Hydrometric Monitoring Station Information

Appendix 2. Drainage Area Maps

Appendix 3. Discharge Measurements

Appendix 4. Channel Geometry

Appendix 5. Rating Curves

Appendix 6. Annual Hydrographs and Daily Discharge Tables


Glossary and Abbreviations

SABINA GOLD & SILVER CORP. ix

Glossary and Abbreviations

Terminology used in this document is defined where it is first used. The following list will assist readers

who may choose to review only portions of the document.

ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler.

Annual runoff Annual runoff is a measure of the hydrologic response of a watershed. It is

often presented as a depth of water, in mm, over an entire watershed

allowing direct comparison with precipitation totals.

Arctic nival A hydrological regime in which snowmelt is the major hydrological event

producing runoff and continuous permafrost impedes deep infiltration

reducing baseflow and winter flow.

Baseflow The groundwater component of flow discharge that is attributed to soil

moisture and groundwater drainage into a channel.

Break-up The melting and dissipation of the ice cover on a water body.

Canadian Shield A vast geologic area of exposed Precambrian crystalline igneous and high-grade

metamorphic rocks that form tectonically stable areas covered by a thin layer of

soil. It has a deep, common, joined bedrock region in eastern and central Canada

and stretches North from the Great Lakes to the Arctic Ocean, covering over half

of Canada.

Drainage Basin The zone or portion of land that contributes water to the surface water runoff

that flows past a given point along a stream channel.

Ephemeral A stream which flows only during or after rain or snowmelt and has no

baseflow component.

Freeze-up The formation of an ice cover on a water body.

Freshet In channels, the relatively high water discharge period resulting from

spring/summer meltwater runoff of the snowpack accumulated over the

winter.

Hydrograph A graphic presentation of the variation in discharge with elapsed time.

Intermittent A stream which flows only part of the year.

ISO International Organization for Standardization

LSA Local Study Area

MAD The mean annual discharge, computed as an average discharge over the year.

NAD 83 North American Datum 1983. A datum is a reference system for computing or

correlating the results of a survey. The NAD83 datum is based on the spheroid

(GRS80).

Permafrost Bedrock, organic or earth material that has temperatures below 0°C persisting

over at least two consecutive years.


x RESCAN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD., AN ERM COMPANY | PROJ#0194096-0002 | REV A.1 | JANUARY 2014

Stage The height of the water surface in a water course or channel above a fixed

datum.

Stage-Discharge

Curve

A curve derived from concurrently measured stage and discharge data that is

used to estimate the discharge for any given observed stage. Often referred to

as a rating curve for a streamflow monitoring station.

Talik An unfrozen section of ground within a layer of discontinuous permafrost.

Taliks can also be found underneath water bodies in a layer of continuous

permafrost.

The Project The Back River Project

Unit Yield It is a ratio of water discharges normalized to the drainage area for a basin.

This parameter allows for direct comparison of the hydrological response of

basins with different size drainage areas.

WSC Water Survey of Canada.

UTM Universal Transverse Mercator. A mathematical transformation (map

projection) of the earth's surface to create a flat map sheet.


1. Introduction

SABINA GOLD & SILVER CORP. 1-1

1. Introduction

The Back River Project (the Project) is a proposed gold project owned by Sabina Gold and Silver

Corporation (Sabina) located in the West Kitikmeot region of Nunavut (Figure 1-1). The 2013 hydrology

baseline program was designed within the local study areas (LSA) of the Goose Property and George

Property areas.

This report presents the results from the 2013 hydrology baseline program. The program included the

collection of site-specific data from streams, rivers, and lakes in the Goose Property area and the George

Property area. Monitoring was focussed on drainages within the potential development area (PDA), but

drainages outside the PDA were monitored to characterize the LSA hydrology. Additionally, monitoring

sites were established at reference drainages for the Goose Property area and George Property area.

The objectives of the 2013 hydrology program were:

o the continued operation of nine hydrometric monitoring stations in the Goose Property area

that were established in 2011 and operated in 2012;

o the expansion of the 2012 hydrometric monitoring network in the Goose Property area with the

installation and operation of six additional hydrometric monitoring stations;

o the continued operation of two hydrometric monitoring stations in the George Property area

that were established in 2012;

o the expansion of the 2012 hydrometric monitoring network in the George Property area with

the installation and operation of five additional monitoring stations, and a new reference

station adjacent to the area;

o the development of stage-discharge relations for each of the hydrometric monitored stations;

o the calculation of water discharges and production of annual hydrographs for each of the

monitored drainage basins; and

o the calculation of hydrologic indices, including annual runoff, monthly runoff distribution, peak

flows, and low flows.

A description of the hydrological setting is presented in Chapter 2 of this report. Overall monitoring

design, and the methods used for data collection is provided in Chapter 3. Results of the 2013

monitoring program are presented in Chapter 4. All raw data collected in 2013 are provided as

appendices to this report.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

_̂

#*

#*

Kilingoyak

(Kent P

eninsula)

Ekaluktutiak(Cambridge Bay)

Omingmaktok (Bay Chimo)Kugluktuk

Kingaok(Bathurst Inlet)

Yellowknife

Killinik(Victoria Island)

GeorgeProperty

Area

Nunavut

Northw

est Territories

Contwoyto Lake

Arctic Circle

Coronation Gulf

Great SlaveLake

Queen MaudGulf

Kiligiktokmik(Bathurst Inlet)

AylmerLake

GooseProperty

Area

Marine LaydownArea

Kilo

kgikto

k

(Weste

rnR

iver)

Hannigayok ( Back River )

105°0'0"W

105°0'0"W

110°0'0"W

110°0'0"W

115°0'0"W

115°0'0"W

68

°0'0

"N

68

°0'0

"N

66

°0'0

"N

66

°0'0

"N

64

°0'0

"N

64

°0'0

"N

PROJECT #0194096-0015 GIS #BAC-10-102 January 24 2014

Back River Project Location

Figure 1-1

!. Community/Settlement

#* Existing Exploration Camp

_̂ Marine Laydown Area

1:3,500,0000 50 100

Kilometres

Projection: NTKP Lambert Conformal Conic

Back RiverProject


2. Hydrological Setting


2. Hydrological Setting

2.1 ARCTIC HYDROLOGY

The Project area lies within the continuous permafrost zone of the continental Canadian Arctic.

The physiography of the region is dominated by vegetated tundra hillslopes with lakes and scattered

wetlands. The presence of permafrost is hydrologically significant as it has a very low hydraulic

conductivity and thus acts as a barrier to deep groundwater recharge. This physical restriction tends to

increase surface runoff and decrease subsurface flow.

Compared to non-permafrost regions, permafrost watersheds tend to have higher peak flow and lower

baseflow (Kane et al. 1997). Hydrologic processes in permafrost watersheds are generally dominated by

snow accumulation and melt, surface runoff, and runoff routed through lakes. The annual flow

hydrograph is defined by the long cold winters and the short summers. Most of the annual runoff occurs

during spring freshet and is derived from the melting snow pack. Additionally, frontal systems may

generate precipitation events that produce moderate runoff. Following the freshet, a low flow period

typically develops through July and August. Due to the presence of permafrost, there is limited

groundwater support for smaller streams; however, there may be interaction between groundwater

systems and larger rivers and/or lakes through taliks or openings in the permafrost. As a result of the

permafrost, baseflow in streams is supported only by flow through the shallow upper active layer of the

soil and release from storage features including lakes and wetlands. Overall, surface runoff in Arctic

basins is largely controlled by snowmelt and the presence of permafrost, which accentuates runoff

peaks while reducing baseflow conditions (Woo 1990).

The hydrologic year for the region is defined by break-up and freeze-up. According to regional data

from the Water Survey of Canada (WSC), break-up typically occurs in early June and freeze-up in

October. Water is stored in the snowpack during winter and is released as temperatures increase during

the spring freshet. Small to medium sized streams typically freeze dry during the winter, due to the

limited storage capacity of the surrounding landscape. Even some large rivers in the continuous

permafrost region cease to flow after freeze-up (Woo 1990).

Arctic hydrographs are characterized by a steep rising limb leading to a peak during the freshet period,

and a second rainfall-generated peak that can be observed in certain years in late August or early to

mid-September. Generally, within the continuous permafrost region discharge is dominated by

snowmelt floods, referred to as a nival regime. A conceptual hydrograph showing typical annual

discharge patterns for small watersheds is shown in Figure 2.1-1.

In very small basins the freshet can be as short as a few days and will often occur immediately after ice

break-up in the lakes, if lakes are present in the basin. Streamflow in these basins may cease after

freshet and streams remain dry until the late summer rains begin. In contrast to smaller basins, in rivers

draining larger watersheds the freshet peak may be delayed after ice break-up. The delay occurs as

snowmelt from upper portions of the larger watershed is routed through the drainage network. Smaller

basins can also have more dramatic responses to precipitation than larger watersheds. In larger

watersheds the presence of lakes creates significant flow attenuation, which may diminish the

magnitude of peak flows.

PROJECT # ILLUSTRATION #833-002-02 a34632w

Figure 2.1-1

January 3, 2012

Theoretical Typical Annual Flow Hydrographfor a Small Arctic Watershed

July August

Time

Dis

char

ge

Peak flows during freshet soon after thaw

Note: Approximate scale only

Adapted from Woo (1990)

Falling limb of freshet as remaining snow in watershed melts

Low flows in summer supportedby active layer discharge Higher flows due to rainfall/snowfall

during late August and September

June September

HYDROLOGICAL SETTING


A number of factors influence the volume of freshet runoff in Arctic watersheds, these factors include:

o Amount of snowpack available to be melted in spring. Snowpack depth is dependent on the

amount of snowfall during the previous winter and the amount of snow remaining in each

watershed prior to freshet. Snow can be lost or redistributed due to sublimation, melting, or wind;

o Air temperature. Above freezing air temperatures combined with a rapid air temperature increase

can greatly affect peak flow rates as a rapid increase in temperature after the snowpack is already

saturated can produce high melt rates. Differential melt rates on north and south facing slopes can

also occur which may affect the size of the area contributing to the melt. Warm air temperatures

can increase evapotranspiration and sublimation, reducing surface water availability;

o Timing of opening of stream channels linking lakes. Snowmelt from hillslopes surrounding lakes

can occur before the stream channels draining the lakes become ice free. In this case,

meltwater can be stored in the lake and then released once the channels are open to flow; and,

o Soil moisture conditions and lake levels at the end of the previous summer. If there was a dry

summer during the previous year, lake levels could have been lowered and a soil moisture

deficit could have developed within the hillslopes surrounding the lakes. As a result, a portion

of the annual runoff will recharge the lakes and soil moisture and not be transmitted from the

watershed as streamflow.

After snowmelt-generated runoff ends, the remaining runoff in summer and fall is controlled by rainfall,

evaporation, and release of stored water in lakes and the active layer. Smaller basins with minimal lake

area tend to exhibit a more rapid response to precipitation than larger basins. Open-water evaporation

rates in summer often exceed total rainfall, causing soil moisture deficits in the shallow active layer of the

soil. Studies of hillslope processes in northern watersheds have shown that summer rainfall can produce

little or no runoff from hillslopes in the permafrost zone (Quinton and Marsh 1998). In this case,

streamflow increases only due to rain falling directly onto lake surfaces or when there is significant rainfall

from short-term/high intensity events, or longer-term/sustained lower intensity events (Dugan et al. 2009)

2.2 AVAILABLE REGIONAL HYDROLOGIC DATA

Regional data are available from hydrometric stations operated by WSC and by mining projects in the

region (Table 2.2-1 and Figure 2.2-1). The drainage areas of these stations range from 7 km2 to

19,600 km2. Data from these stations with the closest proximity to the Project area were analyzed to

provide background information on the regional surface water hydrology (for details, see Rescan 2013a,

Volume 6, Chapter 1).

Analysis of historical data revealed that break-up in these rivers has typically occurred in May and freeze-

up in October (Figure 2.2-2). Peak flows were typically observed in early to mid-June during freshet and

some stations recorded a second substantial peak in late summer or early autumn. Hydrometric stations

with smaller watershed areas (e.g., Atitok Creek) frequently report zero flow throughout the winter.

2.3 STUDY AREA

The study area is located near the watershed boundaries of the Ellice River, the Back River, and the

Western River (Figure 2.2-1). The Ellice River discharges north to the Arctic Ocean into the Queen Maud

Gulf approximately 300 km from the project area and the Western River discharges north to the Bathurst

Inlet approximately 80 km from the project area. The Back River flows northeast to its mouth at

Cockburn Bay on the Arctic Ocean in the eastern portion of the Kitikmeot Region, south of Gjoa Haven.

The basins within the Project area are characterized by extensive networks of lakes, low relief

hummocky topography, and exposed bedrock uplands (Plates 2.3-1 and 2.3-2).


2-4 RESCAN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD., AN ERM COMPANY | PROJ#0194096-0002 | REV A.1 | JANUARY 2014

Table 2.2-1. Regional Water Survey of Canada (WSC) Stations Relevant to the Study Area

WSC

Station ID Station Name Latitude Longitude

Drainage Area

(km2)

Period of

Record

06MA002 Qinguq Creek near Baker Lake 64°15'42" N 96°18'53" W 432 1969-1994

07RC001 Thonokied River near the mouth 64°8'49" N 108°55'2" W 1,780 1980-1990

10JA004 Acasta River Above LittleCrapeau Lake 64°52'32" N 116°8'30" W 2,280 1980-1994

10JE001 Sloan River Near The Mouth 66°31'19" N 117°16'26" W 2,040 1976-1991

10PC002 Atitok Creek Near Dismal lakes 67°12'52" N 116°36'32" W 217 1980-1990

10RA001 Back River below Beechey Lake 65°11'14" N 106°05'09" W 19,600 1978–2012

10RA002 Baillie River near the mouth 65°00'38" N 104°29'26" W 14,500 1978–2012

10QC001 Burnside River near the mouth 66°43'34" N 108°48'47" W 16,800 1976–2012

10QC002 Gordon River near the mouth 66°48'36" N 107°06'04" W 1,530 1977–1994

10QD001 Ellice River near the mouth 67°42'30" N 104°8'21" W 16,900 1971-2012

n/a Slipper-Lac de Gras Stream* 64°36'33" N 110°50'27" W 185 1995-2011

n/a Vulture-Polar Stream* 64°44'24" N 110°32'56" W 7.2 1997-2011

* from Ekati Project (Rescan 2013b)

Plate 2.3-1. High angle oblique view showing the extensive lake coverage and

low relief hummocky topography typical of the Goose and the George Property

areas. This photograph was taken of the George Property area on July 14, 2013.

_̂

#*

#*

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Ellice RiverWatershed

Upper Back RiverWatershed

Western RiverWatershed

GooseProperty

Area

Coronation Gulf

Queen MaudGulf

Nunavut

Northwest Territories

GeorgeProperty

Area


Back RiverProject

Perry

Riv

er

Coppermine River

Tre

e R

iver

James River

Hood River

Mara

Riv

er

Koig

nuk R

i ver

Ang

ima

juq

Riv

er

Tin

gm

eak

Rive

r

Elli

ce R

iver

Thelo

n R

iver

Sna

re R

iver

DubawntLake

BakerLake

GreatSlaveLake

ContwoytoLake

Lac deGras

NapaktulikLake

Aya

pakpaktovi k ( B

urnside R

iver)

Hannig

ayo

k(B

ack

R

iver)

10PC002

10JE001 10QC001

10QC002

10RA001 10RA002

10QD001

10JA004

07RC001

06MA002

Slipper

Vulture

MarineLaydown

Area

Tibbitt to ContwoytoWinter Road

TCWRWinter RoadConnector

90°0'0"W

95°0'0"W

95°0'0"W

100°0'0"W

100°0'0"W

105°0'0"W

105°0'0"W

110°0'0"W

110°0'0"W

115°0'0"W

115°0'0"W

68

°0'0

"N69

°0'0

"N67

°0'0

"N

67

°0'0

"N

66

°0'0

"N

66

°0'0

"N

65

°0'0

"N

65

°0'0

"N

64

°0'0

"N

64

°0'0

"N

63

°0'0

"N

63

°0'0

"N62

°0'0

"N

!( WSC Hydrometric Station

Flow Direction

Watershed Boundary


_̂ Marine Laydown Area

Proposed Infrastructure

Potential Development Area(PDA)

Tibbitt to ContwoytoWinter Road

TCWR Winter Road Connector

Winter Road

Winter Road, George Tie-InOption 1


BIPR Winter Road Connector

Haul and Access Road

Federal Watershed Delineation

Bathurst Inlet - Burnside River

Upper Back River

Queen Maud Gulf - Ellice River

0 50 100

Kilometres

1:3,500,000

Projection: NTKP Lambert Conformal Conic

PROJECT # 0194096-0002 GIS # BAC-10-101 January 24, 2014

Regional Hydrometric StationsRelevant to the Study Area

Figure 2.2-1

GRAPHICS #PROJECT #

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Perc

ent o

f Ann

ual R

unof

f (%

)

Monthly Distribution of Annual Runoffat Regional and Project Stations

Figure 2.2-2

Figure 2.2-2

BAC-0002-0170194096-0002 December 27, 2013

Acasta RiverAtitok CreekBack RiverBaillie RiverBurnside RiverEllice RiverGordon RiverQinguq CreekSlipper-Lac de GrasSloan RiverThonokied RiverVulture-Polar



Plate 2.3-2. Looking north along the outflow from Esker Pond on the George

Property. Note the relatively low relief topography, bedrock outcrops and low

tundra vegetation typical of the region. June 4 2013.

For the Goose Property, the 2013 study area was reduced to 209.9 km2 from 391.3 km2 in 2012 following

changes to the Project infrastructure which no longer included drainages within the Back River watershed.

Figure 2.3-1 shows the locations of the hydrometric stations within the sub-watershed boundaries of the

Goose Property area. The study was designed to monitor a 204.6 km2 area encompassing the potential

infrastructure within the Goose Property local study area (LSA), which is located within the Ellice River

watershed. An additional reference station was located in a 5.3 km2 drainage basin within the Back River

watershed approximately 14 km to the south of the potential infrastructure (Figure 2.3-1).

The Goose Property LSA has approximately 18% lake coverage, an average ground slope of 1.4%, and a

total relief of 85 m. The gauged streams within the study area range from small ephemeral channels,

less than 1 m in width, to larger streams with widths exceeding 50 m. Larger streams are located at the

outlets of the larger lakes. Although some large rivers in the region may still have flow during the

winter, it is likely that most stream channels around the Project area freeze to their bed and have zero

flow during the winter months. Based on available data from WSC, the Ellice River near its mouth

typically stops flowing over the winter period.

For the George Property, the 2013 study area was expanded from 33.5 km2 in 2012 to 301.8 km2 in

2013. Figure 2.3-2 shows the locations of the hydrometric stations and their associated sub-watershed

boundaries on the George Property. The study was designed to monitor a 287.1 km2 area encompassing

the potential infrastructure within the George Property LSA, which is located within the Western

watershed. An additional reference station was located in a 14.7 km2 drainage basin approximately

10 km to the southwest of the potential infrastructure (Figure 2.3-2).

The George Property LSA has approximately 16% lake coverage, an average ground slope of 2.8%, and a

total relief of 177 m. This region exhibits higher relief than the Goose Property, with ridges of bedrock

and esker deposits separating glacial valleys. Many of the gauged streams on the George Property were

deep and narrow and meandered within the over-widened valleys created by glaciers, while others

flowed through wide beds.

Flow Direction

PROJECT # 0194096-0002 GIS # BAC-10-087 December 30, 2013

Study Area Drainage Basins - Goose Property Area

Figure 2.3-1

"S

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

Tahikafalok Nahik(Propeller Lake)

SwanLake

DelLake

BeecheyLake

GooseLake

MobyLake

WolfLake

Reference BLake

LlamaLake

GiraffeLake

EchoLake

ChairLake

MamLake

UmweltLake

FoxLake

RabbitLake

RascalLake

WaspLake

LeafLake

BigLake

GL-H1

GL-H2

GL-H3

PL-H1

PL-H2

GI-H1

EL-H1WL-H1

REFB-H1

TIA-H1

UM-H1

WP-H1

WR-H1

BL-H1

BL-H2BL-H3

GC-L1

PROP-L1

410000

410000

415000

415000

420000

420000

425000

425000

430000

430000

435000

435000

440000

440000

445000

445000

450000

450000

72

60

00

0

72

60

00

0

72

65

00

0

72

65

00

0

72

70

00

0

72

70

00

0

72

75

00

0

72

75

00

0

72

80

00

0

72

80

00

0

±

!( Hydrometric Station

!(Inactive HydrometricStation

!( Lake Level Monitoring Station

Local Study Area

Regional Study Area

Flow Direction

Variable Drainage Divide

Sub-watershed Boundary

#*ExistingExploration Camp

TCWR Winter Road Connector

Winter Road






Upper Back River


Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 13N

1:125,000

0 2.5 5

Kilometres© Department of Natural Resources, Canada. All rights reserved.

_̂

#*

#*

!.

Kilogiktok(Bathurst Inlet, Southern Arm)

Main Map


MarineLaydown

Area


UT

MZ

on

e1

3

UT

MZ

one

12

GooseProperty

AreaTibbitt to

ContwoytoWinter Road

GeorgeProperty

Area

BIPR WinterRoad Connector

NunavutNorthwest Territories


1:3,500,000

PROJECT # 0194096-0002 GIS # BAC-10-088 December 30, 2013

Study Area Drainage Basins -George Property Area

Figure 2.3-2

#*

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

SleighLake

McCoyLake

OccurrenceLake

MC-H2

GeorgeLake

FoldLake

SlaveLake

LytleLake

UpperDragonLake

EskerPond

DragonLake

KomaticLake

BobLake

Lower Long Lake

KL-H2

KL-H1

LY H1

MC-H1

SL-H1

382000

382000

384000

384000

386000

386000

388000

388000

390000

390000

392000

392000

394000

394000

396000

396000

73

08

00

0

73

08

00

0

73

10

00

0

73

10

00

0

73

12

00

0

73

12

00

0

73

14

00

0

73

14

00

0

73

16

00

0

73

16

00

0

Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 13N

1:45,000

0 1 2

Kilometres

±

!( Hydrometric Station

Drainage Boundary

Flow Direction

Local Study Area (LSA)

Regional Study Area (RSA)




BIPR Winter Road Connector






Upper Back River


© Department of Natural Resources, Canada. All rights reserved.

#*!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

SL-H1

MC-H1

LY H1

LG-H1

KL-H1

REFQ-H1

KL-H2

GeorgeProperty

Area

Tikigak

MC-H2

Inset A

1:450,000

_̂

#*

#*

!.

Kilogiktok(Bathurst Inlet, Southern Arm)

Main Map


MarineLaydown

Area


Inset AU

TM

Zo

ne

13

UT

MZ

on

e1

2

GooseProperty

Area

Tibbitt to Contwoyto

Winter Road

GeorgeProperty

Area

BIPR WinterRoad Connector

NunavutNorthwest Territories


1:3,500,000

No earthworks will be initiated withinthe 31 m watercourse/waterbody buffer.


3. Methodology


3. Methodology

3.1 HYDROMETRIC MONITORING NETWORK

A network of hydrometric monitoring stations was initiated in 2010 and expanded in the following years

to collect continuous water level data at selected locations within the Project area (Table 3.1-1).

The automated stations recorded stream and lake water level data at ten minute intervals during the

open water season. Information sheets for hydrometric stations are presented in Appendix 1 and

watershed maps associated with these hydrometric stations are provided in Appendix 2.

Table 3.1-1. Hydrometric Monitoring Stations in the Goose Property Area

Hydrometric

Station Location

Geographic

Coordinates* Drainage

Area

(km2)

Lake

Coverage

(%)

Monitoring

Years

Period of

Operation

in 2013

Monitoring

Type Easting Northing

BL-H1 Big Lake inflow 429,044 7,268,478 3.6 2.5 2012 n/a stream water

level

BL-H2 Swan Lake 424,087 7,265,274 160 18.9 2012 n/a stream water

level

BL-H3 Moby Lake outflow 423,467 7,264,998 21.4 4.7 2012 n/a stream water

level

EL-H1 Echo Drainage

outflow

432,091 7,269,573 1.4 2.2 2011-2013 May 31 to

Sep 12

stream water

level

GC-L1 Goose Camp 434,227 7.269,886 n/a† n/a† 2013 Jun 7 to

Oct 4

lake water

level

GI-H1 Giraffe Lake outflow 432,744 7,271,610 27.4 13.3 2011-2013 Jun 5 to

Sep 10

stream water

level

GL-H1 Goose Lake inflow 430,772 7,270,016 18.0** 10.6 2010-2013 Jun 2 to

Sep 12

stream water

level

GL-H2 Llama Lake outflow 428,746 7,271,567 1.7 23.1 2010-2013 Jun 3 to

Sep 11

stream water

level

GL-H3 Goose Lake inflow 432,891 7,269,919 1.8 7.5 2011-2013 May 31 to

Sep 13

stream water

level

PL-H1 Propeller Lake

outflow

436,094 7,279,939 204.6 18.9 2011-2013 Jun 8 to

Oct 4

stream water

level

PL-H2 Propeller Lake inflow 435,007 7,272,014 101.6 15.1 2011-2013 Jun 2 to

Oct 4

stream water

level

PROP-L1 Propeller Lake 434,782 7,279,265 n/a† n/a† 2013 Sep 9 to

Oct 4

lake water

level

REFB-H1 Reference B Lake

outflow

442,573 7,257,794 5.3 19.1 2011-2013 Jun 6 to

Sep 16

stream water

level

TIA-H1 Tailings impoundment

outflow

431,074 7,273,105 5.0 4.4 2013 Jun 5 to

Sep 12

stream water

level

UM-H1 Umwelt Lake outflow 429,166 7,270,648 4.1 17.0 2013 Jun 3 to

Sep 16

stream water

level

WL-H1 Wolf Drainage

outflow

434,269 7,269,719 32.7** 16.6 2011-2013 Jun 1 to

Sep 15

stream water

level

(continued)



Table 3.1-1. Hydrometric Monitoring Stations in the Goose Property Area (completed)

Hydrometric

Station Location

Geographic


Area

(km2)

Lake

Coverage

(%)

Monitoring

Years

Period of

Operation

in 2013

Monitoring


WP-H1 Wasp Lake outflow 431,087 7,274,467 17.6 14.0 2013 Jun 5 to

Sep 12

stream water

level

WR-H1 WRSA B outflow 434,688 7,269,634 2.7 2.4 2013 Jun 1 to

Sep 15

stream water

level

* UTM, Datum NAD 83, Zone 13 W

** Adjusted in 2012 †Drainage areas and lake coverage not applicable for lake water level stations.

In 2010, a small network of two hydrometric monitoring stations within the Goose Property area (GL-H1

and GL-H2) was operated from July 3 to September 13, 2010 (Table 3.1-1).

In 2011, a network of nine hydrometric monitoring stations was operated from June 10 to September 17

in the Goose Property area (Rescan 2012a). The 2011 network included the remobilization of the two

stations established in 2010, plus the installation of six new stations within the Goose Property area

and one reference station south of the Project drainage boundary. The network focused on monitoring

basins and sub-basins around the known deposits in the Project area, and the furthest downstream

river associated with the property at Propeller Lake outflow (Table 3.1-1).

2012 was the first year of hydrometric monitoring in the George Property area (Table 3.1-2). The

network in the Goose Property area was operated from June 5 to September 14 and the network in the

George Property area was operated from June 10 to September 12 (Rescan 2012b). The 2012 networks

focused on monitoring basins and sub-basins around the known deposits in each property area

(Tables 3.1-1 and 3.1-2).

Table 3.1-2. Hydrometric Monitoring Stations in the George Property Area

Hydrometric

Station Location

Geographic


Area

(km2)

Lake

Coverage

(%)

Monitoring

Years

Period of

Operation

in 2013

Monitoring


KL-H1 Komatic Lake inflow 390,592 7,309,400 24.2 19.7 2012-2013 June 4 to

Sep. 17

stream water

level

KL-H2 George Lake outflow 386,687 7,314,673 9.6 24.6 2012-2013 June 11 to

Sep. 14

stream water

level

LG-H1 Long Lake outflow 394,280 7,305,113 271.1 17.0 2013 June 11 to

Sep. 9

stream water

level

SL-H1 Sleigh Lake outflow 388,274 7,312,296 13.0 23.2 2013 June 9 to

Sep. 17

stream water

level

LY-H1 Lytle Lake outflow 387,172 7,313,489 10.6 23.4 2013 June 10 to

Sep. 14

stream water

level

MC-H1 McCoy Lake 385,983 7,310,949 10.8 12.6 2013 June 10 to

Sep. 14

stream water

level

MC-H2 McCoy outflow 385,070 7,310,204 15.8 11.6 2013 June 9 to

Sep. 17

stream water

level

REFQ-H1 Reference Q Lake 385,551 7,303,203 14.7 9.4 2013 June 12 to

Sep. 18

stream water

level

* UTM, Datum NAD 83, Zone 13 W

METHODOLOGY


The 2012 network in the Goose Property area included the remobilization of the nine stations

established in 2011, plus the installation of three new stations. All of the three new stations were

located within the Back River watershed (BL-H1, BL-H2, and BL-H3). The 2012 network in the George

Property area included the installation of three new stations. Two of the stations, KL-H1 and KL-H2,

encompassed the George Property, and the other one, REFC-H1, operated as a reference station.

In 2013, the network within the Goose Property area included thirteen streamflow monitoring stations

and two lake level monitoring stations operated from May 31st to October 4th. In the George Property

area, eight hydrometric stations were operated from June 4th to September 18th.

In the Goose Property area, the 2013 network was further subdivided and expanded to monitor the

watersheds affected by the updated plans for the Tailings Impoundment Area (TIA) and Waste Rock

Storage Areas (WRSAs). However, monitoring at hydrometric stations within the Back River watershed

(BL-H1, BL-H2, and BL-H3) was not continued, because the infrastructure was no longer planned to be

located within this watershed.

The 2013 network in the Goose Property area included the installation of four new stations and the

remoblization of nine of the stations operated in 2012. Two of the new stations WP-H1 and TIA-H1 were

installed within the presently monitored Giraffe Lake watershed. Station UM-H1 was installed in the

Llama watershed and WR-H1 was installed in the Goose Lake watershed. In addition two lake level

monitoring stations were installed in Goose Lake and Propeller Lake (GC-L1 and PROP-L1).

The George Property area was subdivided in the vicinity of the present-day George exploration camp

and expanded to include the McCoy Lake watershed (Tables 3.1-2). Six new stations were installed and

two stations from the 2012 network were remobilized. Stations LY-H1 and SL-H1 were installed within

the watershed monitored by KL-H1 and the McCoy watershed was monitored with the addition of

stations MC-H1 and MC-H2. Finally, station LG-H1 was located on Long Lake outflow and REFQ-H1 was

added to the network as a reference station.

3.2 HYDROMETRIC MONITORING STATION SETUPS

Hydrometric monitoring stations were setup within the Project area to obtain water level data at

selected stream and lake sites. Specific station locations were determined during initial field

reconnaissance conducted in late May 2013. Sites were selected to best meet the basic criteria

required for desirable gauging locations. Such criteria include: the ability to obtain accurate water

level data and to measure discharge at all stages; a stable natural control of water elevation at the

site; and accessibility during the entire operational period.

Each hydrometric monitoring station consisted of a PS-98i® 0-5 PSI vented pressure transducer

(Instrumentation Northwest Inc.) paired with an ELF-2 data logger (Terrascience Ltd.) or an AquiStar®

PT2X integrated datalogger and pressure transducer (Instrumentation Northwest Inc.).

The instrumentation measured and recorded water levels at 10 minute intervals. Pressure transducers

were encased within aluminum flex conduit which was secured to angle iron (1.5 m lengths by 50 mm

width and 6 mm thickness) and laid flat on the stream/lake bed in order to keep the transducer

weighted in place. The flex conduit housing the transducer cable was routed to a steel weather proof

enclosure containing the data logger. The box was securely installed above the high water mark. An

example of a typical station set-up is shown in Plate 3.2-1.



Plate 3.2-1. Photographs illustrating the hydrometric monitoring station design.

3.3 DISCHARGE MEASUREMENTS

At each hydrometric station, current velocity measurements were performed so that discharges could

be determined. Measurements were taken throughout the open water season in order to obtain a wide

range of discharges under different flow conditions. Four site visits were conducted during mid-June,

mid-July, mid-August, and mid-September time periods, and multiple flow measurements were carried

out during some visits (details provided in Section 4.1).

Manual flow measurements were carried out at each site using two different methods depending on the

flow conditions and morphology of the stream. At one site where the channel was too deep to wade, an

Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) was used to determine discharge. At all other sites, where the

stream channels could be safely waded, a handheld current velocity meter was used.

Pressure

Transducer

Data Logger Enclosure

METHODOLOGY


3.3.1 Current Velocity Measurements

The location of the metered section at each site was determined based on channel geometry and flow

conditions at time of measurement. Generally, the stream was measured along a straight reach near

the station where the bed was as uniform as possible. Areas with submerged vegetation and/or

immovable rocks were avoided where possible.

Current velocities were measured using an electromagnetic current meter (Hach FH950 Portable Flow

MeterTM or Marsh-McBirney Flo-mateTM). A fixed sampling interval of 40 seconds was selected for each

velocity measurement, during which an average velocity was determined.

Water discharge was computed from stream velocity measurements by employing the velocity-area

method, which determines discharge across the channel between observation verticals. In this method it

is assumed that the velocity sampled at each vertical represents the mean velocity in a segment.

The segment area extends laterally from half the distance from the preceding vertical to half the

distance to the next, and vertically from the water surface to the sounded depth. The partial discharges

across the channel are then summed to obtain the estimated total discharge measurement. Typically a

minimum of 20 current velocity measurements are obtained across the width of a channel with the aim of

having each measurement interval accounting for less than 10% of the total discharge (Plate 3.3-1).

Plate 3.3-1. Velocity-area discharge measurements at hydrometric station

KL-H2 using a handheld current velocity meter. September 14, 2013.

At each sounding point, if the observed water depth was less than 0.75 m, the current water velocities

were measured at 60% of the flow depth of water. The measurement at 60% of the flow depth is

generally accepted as representing the mean velocity of the vertical water section (Herschy 2009).

When water depths were greater than 0.75 m, current velocities were measured at 20% and 80% of the

flow depth of water and the average of the two readings was taken as the mean velocity for the

vertical. In all cases, the adopted methods followed standard WSC operating procedures (Terzi 1981).



3.3.2 ADCP Measurements

At one hydrometric station (i.e., PL-H1), water depth was too high during the spring freshet to allow

field personnel to safely wade and measure discharge with a handheld current velocity meter.

Therefore, discharge was measured at this site by means of a StreamPro (Teledyne RD Instruments)

ADCP. All measurements were conducted according to standard operating procedures (Rehmel et al.

2003, WSC 2004).

The location of the ADCP measurements was selected following the same general principles as with the

handheld current velocity meter. In addition, the section was chosen where the channel was relatively

narrow to allow for better instrument control during the ADCP measurements.

At the selected location personnel walked to an upstream location to cross the channel with a rope

system. A cableway was used to manoeuvre the ADCP in controlled transects perpendicular to the

direction of flow (Plate 3.3-2). Multiple transects were conducted until a minimum of four transects

recorded discharges that were all within 5% of the measured mean discharge. The total discharge

measurement was computed by taking the average of the four valid transects.

Plate 3.3-2. Discharge measurements at hydrometric station PL-H1 using an

Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP). Photograph taken on July 14, 2012.

3.4 HYDROMETRIC STATION SURVEYS

3.4.1 Levelling Surveys

The water surface elevation or stage is measured above a specific reference or gauge datum at

hydrometric stations. In order to check for the accuracy and consistency of the recorded data, it is

necessary to periodically verify the elevation of the gauge in relation to the established station datum.

ADCP

Flow

METHODOLOGY


To establish and maintain vertical elevation control at the Project hydrometric monitoring locations,

three local benchmarks were installed at each station. Benchmarks consisted of 76 mm concrete

expansion bolts secured in bedrock or large stable boulders found in the vicinity of the stations.

One benchmark at each station was assigned to be the primary reference point, and assigned an

arbitrary local elevation of 100.000 m. All recorded water levels were then referenced to this primary

benchmark.

Throughout the 2013 monitoring period, hydrometric levelling surveys were conducted during each site

visit. Each survey was completed using an engineer’s level and levelling rod.

3.4.2 Channel Geometry Surveys

Surveys were completed at each streamflow monitoring station in order to define the channel

geometry of the gauged stream section. At the majority of hydrometric stations, a suitable channel

reach was defined by locating the hydraulic controls upstream and downstream of the station. Three

cross-sections, perpendicular to the channel reach, were surveyed at the upstream and downstream

boundaries of the reach, and in line with the station using an engineer’s level and levelling rod.

For the stations located at the outflows of Giraffe Lake (GI-H1), George Lake (KL-H2) and McCoy Lake

(MC-H1), a near-shore longitudinal profile was measured at the station and one additional channel

cross-section was measured at the lake outlet. At the outflow of Propeller Lake (PL-H1), information of

the channel bed topography was obtained from the ADCP, and was merged with topographic

information of the adjacent banks surveyed using an engineer’s level and rod. At each station, all

surveyed cross-sections were referenced to the established arbitrary local datum.

3.5 STAGE – DISCHARGE RELATIONS

In 2013, stage-discharge relations were developed for each streamflow monitoring station.

Stage-discharge relations are expressed as rating curves. Rating curves are used to convert water level

data (stage) recorded by the streamflow monitoring stations into a continuous discharge time series or

hydrograph.

The quality of a rating curve is a function of the number and accuracy of the individual data points that

are used to generate the curve as well as the hydraulic characteristics of the monitoring location.

To develop a robust rating curve 10 to 15 manual streamflow measurements are recommended.

Although a rating curve can be developed with as few as three points, each additional point adds

increased robustness, particularly if the newly added measurements have a different magnitude than

preceding measurements. Flow measurements at the higher end of the flow range are especially

important as they help to define the upper end of the rating curve, which is particularly relevant for

the design of water management infrastructure. The rating relationship can also change from low flow

periods to high flow periods, due to alterations in the geometry of the channel. When this is the case,

a two-stage rating relation may be developed. One relation reflects low stage conditions, while the

other relation represents high stage conditions.

Where possible, 2013 rating curves for the Project area were developed using manual flow

measurements collected in previous years to increase the robustness of the curve. For the most part,

2011 and 2012 measurements were used along with 2013, while 2010 points were excluded due to their

limited temporal (July to September) and spatial (two stations) coverage.

In the absence of a stage–discharge measurement corresponding to high flow conditions, the rating

curve is often extrapolated to a high flow value that is beyond the range of the observed data used to

generate the curve. Extrapolation beyond 2 times (Rantz et al. 1982) the greatest manually measured



discharge is not recommended as the resulting value has a high associated uncertainty. Most stage-

discharge relations in this study were extrapolated to values less than or equal to 2 times the greatest

measured discharge. The stage-discharge relation for hydrometric stations EL-H1 and REFQ-H1 was

extended beyond 2 times the highest measured discharge to account for the range of measured stages;

therefore, there is greater uncertainty in the high discharges calculated at these stations. No rating

curve was developed at hydrometric station MC-H2 because the subsurface flow conditions along the

length of the channel did not allow for accurate discharge measurements.

Rating curves were developed using Aquarius Time Series Hydrologic Software (Aquatics Informatics

Inc.). The software uses standard methods outlined by the United States Geological Survey and the

International Organization for Standardization (Kennedy 1984; ISO 2010). The concurrently measured

water level (stage) and water discharge data were plotted on a logarithmic scale, and the root mean

square error was assessed to produce a best-fit line for the rating curve. The best-fit line was

represented by a power function (Equation 1) for the stage-discharge relationship.

Q = C (h - a) b (1)

Where Q is the discharge (m3/s), C and b are regression coefficients; h is the stage (water level; m).

Variable a represents a datum correction for stage at zero flow (m), assuming that the gauge is

positioned at a level below the point of zero flow. By convention, the rating curve is defined by a two

dimensional graph whereby the dependent variable (Q) is plotted as the x-coordinate along the abscissa

and the independent variable (h) is plotted as the y-coordinate along the ordinate (Herschy 2009).

3.6 DAILY DISCHARGE HYDROGRAPHS

Annual hydrographs, presented as mean daily discharge, were generated for each of the streamflow

monitoring stations operated in 2013. For the operational period at each hydrometric station, water

discharges were calculated at 10 minute intervals by applying the developed rating curve to the

recorded stage data. The 10 minute discharge data were averaged over a 24 hour period to calculate

mean daily discharge.

By normalizing daily discharge values to the drainage area for a basin, unit discharge hydrographs were

developed. Unit discharge values allow for direct comparison of the hydrological response of basins

with different size drainage areas.

All hydrometric stations were demobilized through the 2012-2013 winter months to protect the pressure

transducers from damage due to freezing. Prior to annual remobilization, rising limbs of the hydrographs

were estimated assuming a logarithmic growth function. The onset of the spring freshet was determined

using available temperature data from the George and Goose meteorological stations (Rescan 2014) along

with 2013 provisional daily discharge hydrograph of the regional WSC stations shown in Table 2.2-1.

This date was determined to be May 23rd and May 25th for stations on the Goose and George Property

areas, respectively. Stations EL-H1 (in Goose Property area) and KL-H1 (in George Property area) were

installed early enough to capture the freshet peak. The available extended time series from these

stations was used to estimate the freshet flows of nearby stations through regression analyses.

Following seasonal demobilization, the recession limb of each hydrograph was extended down to a zero

flow date based on a linear or logarithmic decay function. For the decay functions, based on site

observations, it was assumed that the streams froze on October 10th and October 20th in George and

Goose Property area, respectively. In the Goose Property area, two streamflow monitoring stations

(PL-H1 and PL-H2) were demobilized by Sabina employees in October 2013. The extended time series

METHODOLOGY


from these stations (all other stations were demobilized in September) was used to model the late

season flows of nearby stations through regression analysis.

3.7 VOLUMETRIC OUTFLOW

At each hydrometric station, the monthly and annual volumetric water outflows were determined.

Volumetric outflows are expressed in millions of cubic meters per month for each of the monitored basins.

3.8 HYDROLOGIC INDICES

Annual runoff, monthly distribution of annual runoff, mean annual discharge (MAD), peak flow, and low

flow indices were calculated to assist with the design of mine Project infrastructure as well as water

management planning.

3.8.1 Annual Runoff

Annual runoff is the total quantity of water that is discharged (runs off) from a drainage basin in a year

and is determined by dividing the volume of annual streamflow observed at a station by the drainage area

upstream of that station. Runoff represents the difference between total inputs (annual rain and snow)

and losses (e.g., evaporation and the difference between groundwater recharge and discharge). It is

commonly presented as a depth of water over a drainage basin. Runoff is valuable for obtaining gross

estimates of the water available in a basin. Because it is standardized by drainage area, it is also a useful

index for comparing the hydrologic response of basins of different sizes. Total annual runoff for each

hydrometric station consists of measured and estimated runoff values during the period of record.

3.8.2 Monthly Runoff Distribution

Monthly runoff distribution was determined by summing the daily runoff by month for each basin.

Monthly runoff as a depth and as a percent of the total annual runoff was calculated and presented to

illustrate the spatial and temporal distribution of runoff in the Project area.

3.8.3 Mean Annual Discharge

The mean annual discharge (MAD), computed as an average discharge over the year, is an additional

variable that gives an indication of the potential amount of water a basin can provide as a function of

drainage area, geology, and climate.

3.8.4 Annual Peak and Low Flow

Peak flows represent the maximum flow rate of a catchment during a year in response to precipitation

events or snowmelt. Peak flows are used in combination with flood frequency analysis techniques in

order to estimate design flows used in the sizing of ditches, diversion channels, or stream crossings.

Conversely, low flows provide an estimate of the normal baseflow conditions during the open water

season, which is important to the sustained health of a stream’s aquatic community.


4. Results


4. Results

Results from the 2013 hydrology program are presented as follows: (1) completed discharge

measurements, (2) hydrometric surveys, (3) determined stage-discharge relations, (4) daily discharge

hydrographs and volumetric outflows, and (5) hydrologic indices for the Project area.

4.1 DISCHARGE MEASUREMENT SUMMARY

Discharge measurements were taken during the late May and June freshet period at each hydrometric

station with additional measurements conducted in July, August, and September 2013, for a total of

105 measurements. The measurements were collected through the open water season in order to obtain

a range of discharges at different flow conditions (Tables 4.1-1 and 4.1-2, and Appendix 3).

Table 4.1-1. Summary of Discharge Measurements in the Goose Property Area in 2013

Hydrometric Station Date Measured Stage (m)*

Measured Discharge

(m3/s) Method (Equipment Used)

GL-H1 June 2 99.510 a 0.549 Velocity-Area (FH950)

July 15 98.903 a 0.013 Velocity-Area (FH950)

August 20 98.702 a 0.007 Velocity-Area (FlowMate)

September 12 98.944 a 0.017 Velocity-Area (FlowMate)

GL-H2 June 3 99.677 a 0.119 Velocity-Area (FH950)




GL-H3 May 31 99.862 b 0.214 Velocity-Area (FH950)

July 15 99.618 b 0.001 Velocity-Area (FH950)

August 16 99.580 a No Flow N/A†

September 9 99.659 b 0.007 Velocity-Area (FlowMate)

PL-H1 June 8 99.182 a 7.80 Velocity-Area (ADCP)




PL-H2 June 2 99.806 a 4.014 Velocity-Area (FH950)

June 16 99.703 a 1.874 Velocity-Area (FH950)




GI-H1 June 5 99.732 a 1.034 Velocity-Area (FH950)


August 19 99.440 b 0.050 Velocity-Area (FlowMate)


(continued)



Table 4.1-1. Summary of Discharge Measurements in the Goose Property Area in 2013 (completed)


Measured Discharge


EL-H1 May 31 99.414a 0.078 Velocity-Area (FH950)

June 16 99.324 b 0.004 Velocity-Area (FH950)

July 17 99.205 a No Flow N/A†



WL-H1 June 1 98.638 a 0.742 Velocity-Area (FH950)




REFB-H1 June 6 99.577 a 0.055 Velocity-Area (FH950)




TIA-H1 June 5 99.647 a 0.122 Velocity-Area (FH950)



UM-H1 June 3 99.879 a 0.167 Velocity-Area (FH950)







WP-H1 June 5 99.413 a 0.748 Velocity-Area (FH950)



July 20 99.152 a 0.049** Velocity-Area (FH950)



WR-H1 June 1 98.738 a 0.416 Velocity-Area (FH950)


July 16 98.404 a No Flow N/A†





* Stage values corrected during rating curve development, a = surveyed stage, b = pressure transducer corrected stage.

See Appendix 3.

** Discharge calculated from average of two discharge measurements at WP-H1 on July 20 2013.

† Flow was visibly absent in channel. No discharge measurement required.

RESULTS


Table 4.1-2. Summary of Discharge Measurements in the George Property Area in 2013


Measured Discharge


KL-H1 June 4 98.962 a 0.784 Velocity-Area (FH950)





KL-H2 June 11 99.585 a 0.340 Velocity-Area (FH950)





LG-H1 June 11 97.759 a 10.98 Velocity-Area (FH950)





LY-H1 June 10 99.728 a 0.327 Velocity-Area (FH950)






MC-H1 June 10 98.530 a 0.347 Velocity-Area (FH950)






MC-H2 June 9 99.503 a 0.509 Velocity-Area (FH950)





REFQ-H1 June 12 98.892 a 0.277 Velocity-Area (FH950)






(continued)



Table 4.1-2. Summary of Discharge Measurements in the George Property Area in 2013

(completed)

Hydrometric Station Date Measured

Pressure Transducer

Stage (m)

Measured Discharge


SL-H1 June 9 99.546 a 0.642 Velocity-Area (FH950)





* Stage values corrected during rating curve development, a = surveyed stage, b = pressure transducer corrected stage.

See Appendix 3.

Two discharge measurements were taken during the freshet period at most of the hydrometric stations

to capture the range of flow conditions observed. Discharge measurements were not conducted at the

hydrometric stations GL-H3, REFB-H1 and WR-H1 during the August visit and at hydrometric stations

EL-H1 and TIA-H1 during both the July and August visits as these streams were dry.

4.2 HYDROMETRIC STATION SURVEYS

4.2.1 Levelling Surveys

A minimum of one levelling survey was completed during each of the four 2013 field visits at every

hydrometric station. A summary of the survey control points at each station are provided in the station

information sheets (Appendix 1). Survey data from the eleven re-established stations were used to

reference the 2013 stage data to existing benchmarks installed in previous years.

Frost heave in the near-surface permafrost layer created some issues with the stability of the

reference benchmarks and pressure transducers at some hydrometric stations. Where possible,

reference benchmarks were installed in bedrock in order to mitigate this instability. By comparing

changes in benchmark elevations between field visits, some surveyed stage values were deemed

inaccurate, therefore the pressure transducer stage was used to calaculate the water level at the time

of the discharge measurement.

At the majority of stations the surveys confirmed that the pressure transducers measuring water level

remained stationary and properly calibrated during the monitoring period. Despite efforts to reduce

vertical movement of the transducers (Plate 4.2-1), at stations GL-H2, UM-H1, WR-H1, KL-H2, MC-H1,

and REFB-H1 the transducers drifted vertically during the field season due to thawing of the

streambed. In these cases, survey data were used to confirm the changes in elevation of the pressure

transducers and to correct for the errors in the stage time series.

4.2.2 Channel Geometry Surveys

Channel geometry surveys conducted at each hydrometric monitoring location are provided in

Appendix 4. Surveys of the monitored reaches provide a physical representation of the channel

geometry. These data were used in the rating curve development to help define the point of zero flow,

and the elevation of any transitions between high flow and low flow rating curves. Cross-sections of the

channels at the installed pressure transducers also show the water levels associated with minimum,

mean, and maximum daily discharges measured in 2013.

RESULTS


Plate 4.2-1. Station set-up at REFB-H1 in 2013. Rebar was used in an attempt

to limit vertical drift of the transducer into the soft bed along the channel

reach. June 6, 2013.

4.3 STAGE-DISCHARGE RATING CURVES

At each of the streamflow monitoring stations that were established in 2010-2012, the data collected

before 2013 were combined with the data collected in 2013 unless historical measurements were

deemed unreliable. At each of the new stations that were installed in 2013, discharge measurements

during the 2013 open water season were used in the development of preliminary rating equations.

Additional discharge measurements will continue to increase the range and robustness of the stage-

discharge relations.

For stations where no substantial break points were observed, a single rating curve was fit to the full

range of flows measured. A two stage (Low/High) rating curve was developed for stations where the

monitored reach was confined to a fairly deep channel with steep banks during low to medium flow

conditions; however, during high flow conditions the banks were overtopped and the stream was able to

flood the flat tundra adjacent to the channel. Rating equations are summarized in Tables 4.3-1 and 4.3-2,

and rating curves are provided in Appendix 5.


Property Area

Hydrometric Station Rating Equation Q = C (h-a)b Root Mean Square Deviation

GL-H1 Low Stage (h ≤ 98.93) Q = 0.05 (h – 98.42)1.66 28.6

High Stage (h > 98.93) Q = 1.25 (h – 98.79)2.22

GL-H2 Q = 3.99 (h – 99.51)2.08 12.4 (base), 8.1(shift)*

GL-H3 Low Stage (h ≤ 99.77) Q = 1.36 (h – 99.58)2.16 23.2

High Stage (h > 99.77) Q = 9.50 (h – 99.73)1.67

(continued)




Property Area (completed)


PL-H1 Low Stage (h ≤ 98.72) Q = 2.24 (h – 98.48)1.21 14.7

High Stage (h > 98.72) Q = 22.04 (h – 98.56)2.20

PL-H2 Low Stage (h ≤ 99.51) Q = 4.74 (h – 99.43)1.59 8.6

High Stage (h > 99.51) Q = 31.76 (h – 99.46)1.96

GI-H1 Low Stage (h ≤ 99.67) Q = 2.19 (h – 99.45)1.68 21.2

High Stage (h > 99.67) Q = 54.28 (h – 99.63)1.79

EL-H1 Low Stage (h ≤ 99.32) Q = 0.06 (h – 99.12)1.81 17.6

High Stage (h > 99.32) Q = 4.24 (h – 99.30)1.85

WL-H1 Low Stage (h ≤ 98.52) Q = 2.22 (h – 98.22)1.49 16.6

High Stage (h > 98.52) Q = 8.90 (h – 98.29)2.21

REFB-H1 Low Stage (h ≤ 99.58) Q = 1.85 (h – 99.38)2.18 30.4

High Stage (h > 99.58) Q = 13.07 (h – 99.53)1.85

TIA-H1 Q = 0.26 (h – 98.97)1.96 5.4

UM-H1 Low Stage (h ≤ 99.69) Q = 0.60 (h – 99.60)1.68 26.8

High Stage (h > 99.69) Q = 2.68 (h – 99.64)1.82

WP-H1 Low Stage (h ≤ 99.29) Q = 6.58 (h – 99.07)1.96 1.8

High Stage (h > 99.29) Q = 5.18 (h – 99.01)2.17

WR-H1 Low Stage (h ≤ 98.57) Q = 1.89 (h – 98.45)1.73 4.5

High Stage (h > 98.57) Q = 6.00 (h – 98.49)2.17

Q = discharge (m3/s); h = recorded stage (m)

*Shift applied to base rating curve at GL-H2 to account for backwater effect at low flow.

Table 4.3-2. Summary of 2013 Rating Equations for the Hydrometric Monitoring Stations in George

Property Area


KL-H1 Q = 3.88 (h – 98.48)2.07 37.5

KL-H2 Q = 5.48 (h – 99.37)1.78 9.4

LG-H1 Q = 19.90 (h – 96.99)2.40 3.3

LY-H1 Low Stage (h ≤ 99.49) Q = 0.59 (h – 99.30)1.62 7.7

High Stage (h > 99.49) Q = 2.61 (h – 99.36)2.05

SL-H1 Q = 2.23 (h – 98.98)2.12 19.1

MC-H1 Q = 3.20 (h – 98.24)1.82 8.0

REFQ-H1 Low Stage (h ≤ 98.72) Q = 0.61 (h – 98.63)1.25 9.9

High Stage (h > 98.72) Q = 4.05 (h – 98.63)2.02

Q = discharge (m3/s); h = recorded stage (m)

RESULTS


Also included in the table is the Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD) which is used by the Aquarius®

software as an overall measure of error of the stage-discharge relation (Equation 2).

n

Q

QQ

RMSD

n

io

om

2

1∑=

−

= (2)

Where n is the number of rating points used to develop the stage-discharge relation, Qo is the observed

discharge during the manual discharge measurement, and Qm is the discharge calculated by the

developed rating equation.

The RMSD is a statistical parameter that describes how well the values predicted by the stage-

discharge relation fit or represent the observed data. The departure from true values computed by this

statistic combines both bias and lack of precision. The lower the RMSD, the better the estimated values

provided by the rating relationship.

4.4 ANNUAL HYDROGRAPHS

The 2013 annual daily unit discharge hydrographs presented in Figures 4.4-1 and 4.4-2 show similar

trends over the year at each of the monitored locations in the Project area. Daily discharge tables and

individual hydrographs are provided in Appendix 6.

Based on the continuous time series of water level recorded at these sites, it is clear that the largest

observed peak flow occurred during the freshet period from late May to early June.

Pressure transducers were installed at all stations as soon as it was possible at all sites given ice

conditions in the streams and lakes. However, it is usually not possible to get the instrumentation

installed prior to the initial melting, and so regional data were used to help determine the onset of

freshet. To estimate the spring freshet peak, linear regression was used. Regression equations to

estimate freshet peak flows in hydrometric stations within the Goose and George Property areas are

summarized in Tables 4.3-3 and 4.3-4. To estimate the flows between the onset of spring flows

(May 23rd in Goose Property and May 25th in George Property) and the estimated peak flows, a

logarithmic growth function was used.

Regression equations (Tables 4.4-1 and 4.4-2) were developed to extend the recession limb of

hydrographs until Oct 3rd (in Goose Property area) and September 16th (in George Property area).

Beyond these dates, depending on the shape of the hydrograph, linear or logarithmic decay functions

were used to extend the hydrographs to the freeze-up date (i.e., October 20th in Goose Property area

and October 10th in George Property area). Reference stations are provided in the equations

(e.g., EL-H1 for the rising limb and PL-H2 for the recession limb in the Goose Property area).

The 2013 discharge hydrographs (Appendix 6) demonstrate prominent high flows – one was driven by

snowmelt and the others by rainfall. Discharge hydrographs are normalized into unit discharge

hydrographs (Figures 4.4-1 and 4.4-2) to better demonstrate the temporal and spatial variations of

runoff within the study area. Since the natural drainage divide between GL-H3, WL-H1, WR-H1, and

EL-H1 watersheds is not clear, the unit discharge from these watersheds are summed and shown as one

graph in Figure 4.4-1.

GRAPHICS #PROJECT #

Figure 4.4-1

Figure 4.4-1

BAC-0002-0180194096-0002 December 30, 2013

Annual Unit Hydrographs of Hydrometric Monitoring Stationsin 2013 - Goose Property Area

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

41400 41420 41440 41460 41480 41500 41520 41540 41560 41580

Dai

ly U

nit D

isch

arge

(L/s

/km

²)GI-H1

GL-H1

GL-H2

PL-H1

PL-H2

REFB-H1

TIA-H1

UM-H1

WP-H1

(EL-H1)+(GL-H3)+(WL-H1)+(WR-H1)

GRAPHICS #PROJECT #

Figure 4.4-2

Figure 4.4-2

BAC-0002-0190194096-0002 December 27, 2013

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

41400 41420 41440 41460 41480 41500 41520 41540 41560 41580

Dai

ly U

nit D

isch

arge

(L/s

/km

²)

Annual Unit Hydrographs of Hydrometric Monitoring Stationsin 2013 - George Property Area

KL-H1

LG-H1

LY-H1

MC-H1

REFQ-H1

SL-H1

KL-H2



Table 4.4-1. Regression Equations Used to Extend the Hydrographs for Stations in Goose Property

Area

Hydrometric Station Regression Equation for the Rising Limb Regression Equation for the Recession Limb

EL-H1 n/a Q = 0.1342QPL-H21.7452

GI-H1 Q = 0.2953ln(QEL-H1) + 1.9938 Q = 0.7029 QPL-H22.0692

GL-H1 Q = 0.1047ln(QEL-H1) + 0.8941 Q = 0.0335 QPL-H20.6447



PL-H1 Q = 1.5283ln(QEL-H1) + 12.91 n/a

PL-H2 Q = 0.6408ln(QEL-H1) + 5.4158 n/a

REFB-H1 Q = 1.4222 QEL-H1 + 0.0232 Q = 0.0011ln(QPL-H2) + 0.0023

TIA-H1 Q = 0.0254ln(QEL-H1) + 0.1674 Q = 0.0028e22.258QUM-H1

UM-H1 Q = 0.0399ln(QEL-H1) + 0.3126 Q = 0.0167 QPL-H2 + 0.0003

WL-H1 Q = 0.1523ln(QEL-H1) + 1.4264 Q = 0.3322 QPL-H2 – 0.0028

WP-H1 Q = 0.1456ln(QEL-H1) + 1.177 Q = 0.0893 QPL-H2 + 0.0204

WR-H1 Q = 2.6144 QEL-H1 + 0.0469 Q = 0.2183 QPL-H2 – 0.0042

Table 4.4-2. Regression Equations Used to Extend the Hydrographs for Stations in George Property

Area

Hydrometric Station Regression Equation for the Rising Limb Regression Equation for the Recession Limb

KL-H1 n/a n/a

LG-H1 Q = 9.9246 QKL-H1 + 1.8358 Q = 11.809 QKL-H1 + 0.3781

LY-H1 Q = 0.3291 QKL-H1 – 0.0515 n/a

MC-H1 Q = 0.3952 QKL-H1 – 0.0898 n/a

REFQ-H1 Q = 0.4188 QKL-H1 – 0.0306 n/a

SL-H1 Q = 0.5184 QKL-H1 + 0.0029 n/a

KL-H2 Q = 0.3039 QKL-H1 + 0.091 n/a

The total monthly and annual volumetric water outflows for each of the drainages are presented in

Tables 4.4-3 and 4.4-4. Outflows from each of the monitored drainages were generally found to be a

function of drainage area. In the Goose Property area, the minimum volumetric outflows were

observed at TIA-H1 (drainage area = 5.0 km2) which had a total annual water output of

0.17 million cubic meters. The maximum annual volumetric output was 20.38 million cubic meters at

PL-H1 (drainage area = 204.6 km2). In the George Property area, the minimum volumetric outflows

were observed at MC-H1 (drainage area = 10.8 km2) which had a total annual water output of

0.64 million cubic meters. The maximum annual volumetric output was 35.83 million cubic meters at

LG-H1 (drainage area = 271.1 km2).

Variation of daily discharge at hydrometric stations within the Goose Property and George Property

areas are shown in Figures 4.4-3 and 4.4-4. On average Goose Property stations show more flow

variations than George Property stations.

GRAPHICS #PROJECT #

Figure 4.4-3

Figure 4.4-3

BAC-0002-023a0194096-0002 January 2, 2014

0

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

0

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

EL-H1 GI-H1 GL-H1 GL-H2 GL-H3 PL-H1 PL-H2 REFB-H1 TIA-H1 UM-H1 WL-H1 WP-H1 WR-H1

Dai

ly D

isch

arge

(m³/s

)

2013 Daily Discharge Percentiles for Hydrometric Stationswithin the Goose Property Area

Note: Boxes show the quartiles and whiskers show the deciles.

Median

GRAPHICS #PROJECT #

Figure 4.4-4

Figure 4.4-4

BAC-0002-023b0194096-0002 January 2, 2014

0

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

0

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

Dai

ly D

isch

arge

(m³/s

)

2013 Daily Discharge Percentiles for Hydrometric Stationswithin the George Property Area

Note: Boxes show the quartiles and whiskers show the deciles.

KL-H1 LG-H1 LY-H1 MC-H1 REFQ-H1 SL-H1 KL-H2

Median

RESULTS


Table 4.4-3. 2013 Volumetric Water Yield in Millions of Cubic Meters (million m3) for Hydrometric

Stations in the Goose Property Area

Hydrometric

Station Jan-May June July August September October Nov-Dec

Total

Annual

EL-H1 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.18 0.02 0.00 0.30

GI-H1 0.30 1.41 0.14 0.03 0.91 0.24 0.00 3.04

GL-H1 0.16 0.97 0.10 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.00 1.33

GL-H2 0.04 0.25 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.38

GL-H3 0.11 0.68 0.02 0.01 0.28 0.03 0.00 1.12

PL-H1 1.98 13.65 2.29 0.76 1.03 0.65 0.00 20.38

PL-H2 0.86 5.76 0.80 0.39 1.60 0.57 0.00 9.98

REFB-H1 0.04 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18

TIA-H1 0.03 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.17

UM-H1 0.06 0.29 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.41

WL-H1 0.25 1.70 0.26 0.11 0.51 0.18 0.00 3.02

WP-H1 0.20 1.16 0.20 0.09 0.20 0.07 0.00 1.91

WR-H1 0.08 0.27 0.02 0.03 0.33 0.12 0.00 0.85

Note: Estimated values are italicized

Table 4.4-4. 2013 Volumetric Water Yield in Millions of Cubic Meters (million m3) for Hydrometric

Stations in the George Property Area

Hydrometric

Station Jan-May June July August September October Nov-Dec

Total

Annual

KL-H1 0.01 1.92 0.33 0.10 0.22 0.00 0.00 2.58

KL-H2 0.01 0.78 0.24 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 1.12

LG-H1 0.06 23.02 6.44 2.50 3.70 0.11 0.00 35.83

LY-H1 0.01 0.51 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.66

MC-H1 0.01 0.55 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.64

REFQ-H1 0.01 0.72 0.09 0.04 0.16 0.00 0.00 1.03

SL-H1 0.01 1.00 0.27 0.12 0.11 0.00 0.00 1.51

Note: Estimated values are italicized

4.5 HYDROLOGIC INDICIES

4.5.1 Annual Runoff

For the gauged drainages in the Goose Property area, the estimated 2013 annual runoff ranged from

34 mm at TIA-H1 to 315 mm at WR-H1 (Table 4.5-1). Similar to the previous years, GL-H3 represented

and outlier runoff value (621 mm). The discrepancy in annual runoff values is mainly due to the

variable drainage divide among the GL-H3, WL-H1, WR-H1, and EL-H1 watersheds (Plate 4.5-1). Due to

the low relief in this part of the study area, there are instances where small channels divide and follow

different flow paths during high flows than they do under lower flow conditions. As a result of these

branches, drainage areas are no longer static and become difficult to quantify. When these watersheds

are considered as one integrated watershed, the annual runoff is estimated to be 137 mm.



Plate 4.5-1. Channel division of the Rascal Lake outflow showing the division

of the channel due to low relief. The indicated branches flow past different

hydrometric stations before entering Goose Lake. July 19, 2013.

Table 4.5-1. 2013 Estimated Annual Runoff and Mean Annual Discharge in the Goose Property Area

Hydrometric

Station

Drainage

Area

(km2)

Previous Years Results 2013 Results

Annual

Runoff

2011+ (mm)

Annual

Runoff

2012+ (mm)

Annual

Runoff

(mm)

Jun-Sep

Runoff

(mm)

Mean Annual

Discharge

(m3/s)

Mean Jun-Sep

Discharge

(m3/s)

EL-H1 1.4 77 55 215* 178* 0.010 0.024

GI-H1 27.4 157 126 111 91 0.096 0.236

GL-H1 18.0 95 81 74 64 0.042 0.109

GL-H2 1.7 227 206 223* 191* 0.012 0.031

GL-H3 1.8 564 216 621* 545* 0.035 0.093

PL-H1 204.6 123 134 100 87 0.646 1.683

PL-H2 101.6 108 72 98 84 0.316 0.811

REFB-H1 5.3 56 40 34 25 0.006 0.013

TIA-H1 5.0 n/a n/a 34 28 0.005 0.013

UM-H1 4.1 n/a n/a 101 85 0.013 0.033

WL-H1 32.7 104 82 92* 79* 0.096 0.245

WP-H1 17.6 n/a n/a 108 93 0.060 0.155

WR-H1 2.7 n/a n/a 315* 243* 0.027 0.062

(GL-H3) + (WL-H1) +

(WR-H1) + (EL-H1)

38.6 n/a n/a 137 116 0.168 0.424

+: Updated watershed areas used to estimate the 2011 and 2012 annual runoff values.

*: Drainage divide is not fixed; therefore runoff values are uncertain.

RESULTS


The lower than expected estimated runoff at TIA-H1 is most likely attributed to the subsurface flow at

this hydrometric location. Likewise, the higher than expected runoff at GL-H2 is due to the variable

drainage divide between this watershed and the Big Lake watershed. Part of the Big Lake watershed

runoff overflows to the GL-H2 watershed during the open water season.

For the gauged drainages in the George Property area, the estimated 2013 annual runoff ranged from

59 mm at MC-H1 to 132 mm at LG-H1 (Table 4.5-2). Runoff values within George Property area show

less spatial variations than those within the Goose Property area.

Table 4.5-2. 2013 Estimated Annual Runoff and Mean Annual Discharge in the George Property

Area

Hydrometric

Station

Drainage

Area (km2)

Previous Years Results 2013 Results

Annual

Runoff 2011

(mm)

Annual

Runoff 2012

(mm)

Annual

Runoff

(mm)

Jun-Sep

Runoff

(mm)

Mean Annual

Discharge

(m3/s)

Mean Jun-Sep

Discharge

(m3/s)

KL-H1 24.2 n/a 143 107 106 0.082 0.243

KL-H2 9.6 n/a 143 116 116 0.035 0.105

LG-H1 271.1 n/a n/a 132 132 1.136 3.383

LY-H1 10.6 n/a n/a 62 61 0.021 0.061

MC-H1 10.8 n/a n/a 59 59 0.020 0.060

REFQ-H1 14.7 n/a n/a 70 69 0.033 0.097

SL-H1 13.0 n/a n/a 117 115 0.048 0.142

In the Arctic, the winter snowpack drives the annual runoff (Woo 1990). The 2012-2013 snowpack in the

Canadian Arctic was 23% below the average of the last 66 years (Environment Canada 2013). The result

of this below-average snowpack was a drier year with lower annual runoff in 2013 than in 2011 and

2012. This is evident at stations PL-H1 and KL-H1 that represent the majority of Goose Property and

George Property area, respectively (Tables 4.5-1 and 4.5-2).

4.5.2 Mean Annual Discharge

Mean annual discharge (MAD) and the average discharge during the open water period from the

beginning of June through September were calculated and provided in Tables 4.5-1 and 4.5-2.

For the gauged drainages in the Goose Property area, the average discharge during the open water

season was the lowest at TIA-H1 (0.013 m3/s) and the highest at PL-H1 (1.683 m3/s; Table 4.5-1).

For the gauged drainages in the George Property area, MAD was the lowest at MC-H1 (0.060 m3/s) and

the highest at LG-H1 (3.383 m3/s; Table 4.5-2).

The MAD was much lower than the average discharge during the open water season, because a large

portion of the year has zero flow conditions. In the Goose Property area, MAD was the lowest at TIA-H1

(0.005 m3/s) and the highest at PL-H1 (0.646 m3/s) (Table 4.5-1). In the George Property area, MAD

was the lowest at MC-H1 (0.020 m3/s) and the highest at LG-H1 (1.136 m3/s) (Table 4.5-2).

4.5.3 Monthly Runoff Distribution

In all drainages, except EL-H1 and WR-H1, the maximum monthly runoff occurred in June (Tables 4.5-3

and 4.5-4; Figures 4.5-1 and 4.5-2). In these two watersheds, the maximum monthly runoff occurred in

September. As previously mentioned, this exception may be attributed to the variable drainage divide

among the watersheds to the south of Goose Lake.



Table 4.5-3. 2013 Runoff Distribution in the Goose Property Area

Hydrometric

Station

Jan-May June July August September October Nov-Dec

(mm) (%)* (mm) (%)* (mm) (%)* (mm) (%)* (mm) (%)* (mm) (%)* (mm) (%)*

EL-H1 22 10 39 18 2 1 7 3 129 60 16 7 0 0

GI-H1 11 10 51 46 5 5 1 1 33 30 9 8 0 0

GL-H1 9 12 54 73 6 8 1 2 3 5 1 2 0 0

GL-H2 24 11 145 65 16 7 5 2 26 12 8 3 0 0

GL-H3 60 10 375 60 12 2 4 1 154 25 16 3 0 0

PL-H1 10 10 67 67 11 11 4 4 5 5 3 3 0 0

PL-H2 8 9 57 58 8 8 4 4 16 16 6 6 0 0

REFB-H1 8 24 23 68 2 5 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0

TIA-H1 6 18 22 65 2 6 2 5 2 5 1 2 0 0

UM-H1 14 14 71 70 5 5 2 2 7 6 2 2 0 0

WL-H1 8 8 52 56 8 9 3 4 16 17 6 6 0 0

WP-H1 11 10 66 61 11 10 5 5 11 10 4 4 0 0

WR-H1 28 9 101 32 7 2 13 4 123 39 44 14 0 0

(GL-H3) + (WL-H1) +

(WR-H1) + (EL-H1)

12 9 70 51 8 6 4 3 34 25 9 7 0 0

* Monthly or a certain period runoff represented as a percentage of annual runoff.

Table 4.5-4. 2013 Runoff Distribution in the George Property Area

Hydrometric

Station

Jan- May June July August September October Nov-Dec

(mm) (%)* (mm) (%)* (mm) (%)* (mm) (%)* (mm) (%)* (mm) (%)* (mm) (%)*

KL-H1 1 1 79 74 14 13 4 4 9 8 0 0 0 0

KL-H2 1 0 81 69 25 21 5 5 5 4 0 0 0 0

LG-H1 0 0 85 64 24 18 9 7 14 10 0 0 0 0

LY-H1 1 1 48 78 7 12 2 4 3 5 0 0 0 0

MC-H1 1 1 51 85 4 7 1 1 3 5 0 0 0 0

REFQ-H1 1 1 49 70 6 9 3 4 11 15 0 0 0 0

SL-H1 1 1 77 66 20 18 9 8 9 7 0 0 0 0

* Monthly or a certain period runoff represented as a percentage of annual runoff.

Compared to previous years, the concentration of annual runoff in June was greater than 2011 but

smaller than 2012. Using PL-H1 as a representative station, runoff values in June accounted for 45, 84,

and 67% of the annual runoff in 2011, 2012, and 2013, respectively.

4.5.4 Annual Peak and Low Flow

For most hydrometric stations, except EL-H1 in Goose Property area and KL-H1 in George Property

area, peak flows were estimated based on regression analysis. Such an analysis is more reliable for

daily flows than instantaneous flows. Therefore, this report only presents the daily peak flows

(Tables 4.5-5 and 4.5-6).

Peak flows for most basins in the Project area occurred in late May (in Goose Property area) or early June

(in George Property area). The exception is EL-H1 where the peak flow was observed in September.

GRAPHICS #PROJECT #

Figure 4.5-1

BAC-0002-023c0194096-0002 January 2, 2014

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Jan -May June July August September October Nov-Dec

Perc

ent o

f Ann

ual R

unof

f (%

)

Monthly Runoff DistributionGoose Property Area

EL-H1

GI-H1

GL-H1

GL-H2

GL-H3

PL-H1

PL-H2

REFB-H1

TIA-H1

UM-H1

WL-H1

WP-H1

WR-H1

(GL-H3)+(WL-H1)+(WR-H1)+(EL-H1)

GRAPHICS #PROJECT #

Figure 4.5-2

BAC-0002-023d0194096-0002 January 2, 2014

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Jan -May June July August September October Nov-Dec

Perc

ent o

f Ann

ual R

unof

f (%

)

Monthly Runoff DistributionGeorge Property Area

KL-H1

KL-H2

LG-H1

LY-H1

MC-H1

REFQ-H1

SL-H1

RESULTS


Table 4.5-5. Estimated 2013 Daily Peak Flows and Peak Unit Yields in the Goose Property Area

Hydrometric Station

Drainage Area

(km2)

Peak Daily Flow

(m3/s)

Peak Daily Unit Yield

(L/s/km2) Date

EL-H1 1.4 0.17 118* Sep 15

GI-H1 27.4 1.33 49 May 31

GL-H1 18 0.66 37 May 31

GL-H2 1.7 0.15 90* May 31

GL-H3 1.8 0.49 274* Jun 2

PL-H1 204.6 9.50 46 May 31

PL-H2 101.6 3.99 39 May 31

REFB-H1 5.3 0.18 33 May 31

TIA-H1 5 0.11 22 May 31

UM-H1 4.1 0.22 55 May 31

WL-H1 32.7 1.09 33* Jun 2

WP-H1 17.6 0.85 48 May 31

WR-H1 2.7 0.33 121* May 31

*: Drainage divide is not fixed; therefore unit yield values are uncertain.

Table 4.5-6. Estimated 2013 Daily Peak Flows and Peak Unit Yields in the George Property Area

Hydrometric Station

Drainage Area

(km2)

Peak Daily Flow

(m3/s)

Peak Daily Unit Yield

(L/s/km2) Date

KL-H1 24.2 1.49 62 Jun 7

KL-H2 9.6 0.54 57 Jun 7

LG-H1 271.1 16.62 61 Jun 7

LY-H1 10.6 0.44 41 Jun 7

MC-H1 10.8 0.50 46 Jun 7

REFQ-H1 14.7 0.59 40 Jun 7

SL-H1 13 0.77 60 Jun 7

In the Goose Property area, daily peak flows ranged from 0.11 m3/s at TIA-H1 to 9.50 m3/s at PL-H1

(Table 4.5-5). In the George Property area, daily peak flows ranged from 0.44 m3/s at LY-H1 to

16.62 m3/s at LG-H1 (Table 4.5-6).

Annual low flows are expected to reach zero in all the basins once freeze-up occurs, and zero flow

conditions will last throughout the winter months (approximately October to May). The observed low

flows are those that occurred during the 2013 period of record from early June to mid-September

(Tables 4.5-7 and 4.5-8). Observed low flows for the majority of basins in the Project area occurred in

August. Most streams except the streams monitored by the hydrometric stations PL-H1, PL-H2, WL-H1,

WP-H1, KL-H1, LG-H1, and SL-H1 experienced zero or extreme low flow conditions during the open

water period.



Table 4.5-7. 2013 Observed Daily Minimum Flows (June through September) in the Goose Property

Area

Hydrometric Station Drainage Area (km2) Daily minimum Flow (m3/s) Date

EL-H1 1.4 0 July 22-26

GI-H1 27.4 < 0.001 Aug 14-15

GL-H1 18.0 0.005 Aug 16-18

GL-H2 1.7 < 0.001 Aug 13-21

GL-H3 1.8 0 Aug 9-20

PL-H1 204.6 0.184 Sep 4

PL-H2 101.6 0.053 Aug 20

REFB-H1 5.3 0 Aug 8-22

TIA-H1 5.0 0.003* July 7 to Aug 3*

UM-H1 4.1 0.001 Aug 16-18

WL-H1 32.7 0.013 Aug 20

WP-H1 17.6 0.025 Aug 16-18

WR-H1 2.7 0 Aug 9-20

* Flows were not recorded after August 3rd, but dry channel conditions were observed after this date.

Table 4.5-8. 2013 Observed Daily Minimum Flows (June through September) in the George

Property Area

Hydrometric Station Drainage Area (km2) Daily minimum Flow (m3/s) Date

KL-H1 24.2 0.013 Aug 16

KL-H2 9.6 0.007 Aug 27

LG-H1 271.1 0.677 Aug 18

LY-H1 10.6 0.004 Aug 19-20

MC-H1 10.8 0.001 Aug 16-17 and Aug 20-25

REFQ-H1 14.7 0.000 Aug 16

SL-H1 13.0 0.028 Aug 17-19


5. Summary


5. Summary

The 2013 hydrology program included two networks that encompassed both the Goose and George

Property areas. The network in the Goose Property area was comprised of 15 hydrometric stations

(13 streamflow monitoring stations and 2 lake level stations) to monitor a total drainage area of

209.9 km2, including a reference drainage area of 5.3 km2. The network in the George Property area

was comprised of 8 hydrometric stations to monitor a total drainage area of 301.8 km2, including a

reference drainage area of 14.7 km2.

The hydrometric network was operated through the open water season from May 31, 2013 to

October 3, 2013. During this time period, continuous time series water level (stage) data were

collected at each station and more than 100 manual discharge measurements were completed. Based

on the stage and discharge data collected, stage-discharge rating equations were determined and

annual hydrographs produced.

The annual hydrographs show that basins within the Project area have an Arctic nival hydrologic regime

characterized by snowmelt-driven high flows during the spring freshet and no flows during the winter.

That is, all monitored streams can be considered either intermittent or ephemeral. In 2013 one

prominent snowmelt-driven high flow event was observed in late May to early June in most basins.

After this high flow, discharge steadily decreased throughout the Project area until mid-August.

A rainfall-driven high flow occurred in early September.

Peak flows varied substantially between gauged streams. Daily peak flows in the Goose Property area

ranged from 0.11 m3/s at the hydrometric station TIA-H1 (Tailings Impoundment Area outflow) to

9.50 m3/s at the station PL-H1 (Propeller Lake outflow). Daily peak flows in the George Property area

ranged from 0.44 m3/s at the hydrometric station LY-H1 (Lytle Lake outflow) to 16.62 m3/s at the

station LG-H1 (Long Lake outflow).

Volumetric outflows from each of the monitored drainages were generally found to be a function of

drainage area. In the Goose Property area, the minimum volumetric outflows were observed at TIA-H1

(Tailings Impoundment Area outflow; drainage area = 5.0 km2) which had a total annual water output

of 0.17 million m3. The maximum annual volumetric output was 20.38 million m3 at PL-H1 (Propeller

Lake outflow; drainage area = 204.6 km2). In the George Property area, the minimum volumetric

outflows were observed at MC-H1 (drainage area = 10.8 km2) which had a total annual water output of

0.64 million m3. The maximum annual volumetric output was 35.83 million m3 at LG-H1 (drainage

area = 271.1 km2).

Regional data (Environment Canada 2013) show that 2013 was a drier year with a low snowpack

compared to 2011 and 2012. Annual runoff was 100 mm at PL-H1, which represents the Goose Property

area, and 107 mm at KL-H1, which represents the George Property area. Variable drainage divides

between the sub-watersheds increased the uncertainty in runoff estimates for the smaller sub-

watersheds.

In most drainages the maximum monthly runoff occurred in June (67% in PL-H1 and 74% in KL-H1 which

represent the Goose and George Property areas, respectively). The exceptions are EL-H1 and WR-H1

where the maximum monthly runoff was in September. The percent of the total annual runoff in June

was greater than that of 2011 and less than that of 2012.


References

SABINA GOLD & SILVER CORP. R-1

References

Dugan, H., Lamoureux, S. F., Lafrenière, M., and Lewis, T. 2009. Hydrological and sediment yield

response to summer rainfall in a small high arctic watershed. Hydrological Processes, Vol. 23,

Issue 23, 1514-1526, doi: 10.1002/hyp.7285:

Environment Canada. 2013. Winter Precipitation Summary Table. http://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-

cmda/default.asp?lang=En&n=5971A44D-1 (accessed December 2013).

Herschy, R. W. 2009. Streamflow measurement. Third ed. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

International Standards Organization 2010. ISO 1100-2: 2010. Hydrometry – Measurement of liquid flow

in open channels – Part 2: Determination of the stage discharge relationship. 3rd ed. ISO,

Switzerland.

Kane, D.L., Gieck, R.E., Hinzman, L.D. 1997. Snowmelt Modeling at Small Alaskan Arctic Watershed.

Journal of Hydrologic Engineering. Vol. 2, No. 4, 204-210.

Kennedy, E. J. 1984. Discharge ratings at gauging stations. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water

Resources Investigations. Book 3. United States Geological Survey.

Quinton, W. L. and P. Marsh. 1998. The influence of mineral earth hummocks on subsurface drainage in

the continuous permafrost zone. Permafrost and Periglacial Processes, Vol. 9, 213-228.

Rantz, S.E., et al. 1982. Measurement and Computation of Streamflow. United States Geological

Survey Water Supply Paper 2175. United States Geological Survey: 631 p.

Rehmel, M. S., J. A. Stewart, and S. E. Morlock. 2003. Tethered Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler

platforms for measuring streamflow. United States Geological Survey Open File Report 03-237.

Rescan. 2012a. Back River Project 2011 Hydrology Baseline Report. Prepared for Sabina Gold & Silver

Corp. by Rescan Environmental Services Ltd.: Vancouver, BC.

Rescan. 2012b. Back River Project 2012 Hydrology Baseline Report. Prepared for Sabina Gold & Silver

Corp. by Rescan Environmental Services Ltd.: Vancouver, BC.

Rescan. 2013a. Back River Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for Sabina Gold &

Silver Corp. by Rescan Environmental Services Ltd.: Vancouver, BC.

Rescan. 2013b. Ekati Diamond Mine: 2012 Aquatic Effects Monitoring Program Part 2 – Data Report,

Prepared for BHP Billiton Canada Inc. by Rescan Environmental Services Ltd.: Yellowknife,

NWT.

Rescan. 2014. Back River Project: 2006 to 2013 Meteorology Baseline Report. Prepared for Sabina Gold

& Silver Corp. by Rescan Environmental Services Ltd., an ERM company: Vancouver, BC.

Terzi, R. A. 1981. Hydrometric field manual - measurement of streamflow. Environment Canada,

Inland Waters Directorate: Ottawa, ON.

Water Survey of Canada (WSC) 2004. Procedures for Conducting ADCP Discharge Measurements. Version

1.0, 2004. Environment Canada.

Woo, M-K. 1990. Permafrost Hydrology. In: Northern Hydrology, Canadian Perspectives T. D. Prowse

and C. S. L. Ommanney eds. NHRI Science Report NO. 1, 63-76.


Appendix 1 Hydrometric Monitoring Station Information

Page 1 of 1

Appendix 1.1. Station Information Sheet for Hydrometric Station GL-H1

Site ID: GL-H1 Drainage Area (km2): 18.0

Site Location: Near the mouth of the southwestern inflow to Goose Lake

UTM: NAD 83, Zone 13W 430,772 E 7,270,016 N

Benchmarks Elevation (m) Description

BM 3 100.000 Bolt on left bank upstream of the station

BM 60 99.986 Bolt on left bank upstream of station

BM 61 99.979 Bolt on left bank upstream of station

Transducer: PS-98i Logger: ELF-2

Operating Periods:

2010 June 10- Sep 16 Established June 16, 2010

2011 June 10- Sep 16

2012 June 5 – Sep 7

2013 June 2- Sep 12 Added BMs 60 and 61

General Comments:

• Location previously established and monitored from 2007 to 2009 as D32 by

Gartner Lee.

• Wadeable under all conditions

• Access by helicopter

General Site Information Site Map

Low angle view looking across the channel at low flow. The enclosure for

the data logger can be seen on the left bank. August 20, 2013.

Plan View of Hydrometric Station GL-H1 Site Photo

Pressure Transducer

Location

Page 1 of 1



Site Location: Llama Lake outflow

UTM: NAD 83, Zone 13W 428,746 E 7,271,567 N


BM 51 (BM 1) 100.000 Bolt at base of DL enclosure box

BM 52 (BM 2) 99.746 Bolt in boulder embedded in LB

BM 53 (BM 3) 99.781 Bolt in buried boulder ~5m upstream of station


Operating Periods:

2010 July 6- Sept 29 Established June 16, 2010

2011 June 10 – Sept 16

2012 June 5 – Sept 7

2013 June 3 – Sept 11

General Comments:

• Very low flow under most conditions.

• Can be waded under all conditions.

• Access by helicopter or on foot from UM-H1.


Low angle view looking downstream to the south along the monitored

stream reach. September 11, 2013.


Flow Direction

Page 1 of 1



Site Location: Gander Pond Outflow

UTM: NAD 83, Zone 13W 432,891 E 7,269,919 N


BM17 100.000 Bolt on right bank downstream of the station

BM18 100.141 Bolt on left bank downstream of the station

BM19 100.042 Bolt on left bank even with the station


Operating Periods:

2011 June 14 - Sep 16 Established June 16, 2011

2012 June 7 – Sep 9

2013 May 31- Sep 13

General Comments:

• Zero flow during summer low flow period


• Bench marks marked with rebar stakes for locating

• Access by helicopter or on foot from camp


Low angle downstream view of the monitored stream reach.

September 9, 2013.


GL-H3

Flow

Direction

Page 1 of 1

Appendix 1.4. Station Information Sheet for Hydrometric Station PL-H1

Site ID: PL-H1 Drainage Area (km2): 204.4

Site Location: Downstream from Propeller Lake outflow

UTM: NAD 83, Zone 13W 436,094 E 7,279,939 N


BM8 100.000 Bolt upstream from station

BM7 99.538 Bolt downstream from station

BM6 99.601 Bolt near station


Operating Periods:

2011 June14 - Sep 17 Established June 14, 2011

2012 June 6 – Sep 8

2013 June 8 – Oct 4

General Comments:

• Deep but relatively low velocity reach.

• Not wadeable under any conditions. Must walk 200m upstream to cross.


• Under low flow conditions, manual flow measurement 400 m upstream of station.


Low angle view looking upstream towards station PL-H1 and the

monitored reach. At low flow (Aug, Sep) manual measurement was

taken 400 m further upstream. June 8, 2013.

Plan View of Hydrometric Station PL-H1 Site Photo

PL-H1

ADCP Flow

Gauging Section

Flow Direction

Page 1 of 1

Appendix 1.5. Station Information Sheet for Hydrometric Station PL-H2

Site ID: PL-H2 Drainage Area (km2): 101.6

Site Location: Between the outflow of Goose Lake and the inflow of Propeller Lake

UTM: NAD 83, Zone 13 W 435,007 E 7,272,014 N


BM4 100.000 Bolt on in-stream boulder near the station



Transducer: PT-2X Logger: Self-Contained

Operating Periods:

2011 June 11 – Sep 17 Established June 11, 2011

2012 June 12 – Sep 13

2013 June 2 – Oct 4

General Comments:

• Wide boulder strewn channel

• Low flow through boulders under all but freshet conditions where flow covers boulders




Low angle view looking upstream at the monitored reach under low

flow conditions. Note the flow through boulders under these flow

conditions. July 18, 2013.

Plan View of Hydrometric Station PL-H2 Site Photo

Flow

Flow gauging

section

PL-H2

Page 1 of 1

Appendix 1.6. Station Information Sheet for Hydrometric Station GI-H1

Site ID: GI-H1 Drainage Area (km2): 27.4

Site Location: Outflow of Giraffe Lake

UTM: NAD 83, Zone 13W 432,744 E 7,271,610 N


BM5 100.000 Bolt near station



Transducer: PS-98i Logger: ELF2

Operating Periods:


2012 June 9 – Sep 14

2013 June 5 – Sep 10

General Comments:

• Wide boulder strewn channel. 2013 low flows measured 200m upstream.

• Relatively low flow, except at freshet




Upstream view of Giraffe Lake outflow. Photograph was taken

during summer low flow conditions and indicates the location of

the pressure transducer at the lake outlet. July 17, 2013.

Plan View of Hydrometric Station GI-H1 Site Photo

GI-H1

Flow

Page 1 of 1

Appendix 1.7. Station Information Sheet for Hydrometric Station EL-H1

Site ID: EL-H1 Drainage Area (km2): 1.4

Site Location: Near the inflow to the West arm of Goose Lake

UTM: NAD 83, Zone 13W 432,091 E 7,269,573 N


BM14 100.000 Bolt near the station

BM15 99.926 Bolt 2m downstream from the station

BM16 99.983 Bolt 2m upstream from the station


Operating Periods:


2012 June 6 – Sep 7

2013 May 31 – Sep 13

General Comments:

• Ephemeral channel prone to flooding

• No flow during dry summer periods




Upstream view of the monitored reach under moderate flow

conditions. Due to the ephemeral nature of the channel, it is lined

with grasses. June 16, 2013.

Plan View of Hydrometric Station EL-H1 Site Photo

EL-H1

Flow Direction

Page 1 of 1

Appendix 1.8. Station Information Sheet for Hydrometric Station WL-H1

Site ID: WL-H1 Drainage Area (km2): 32.7

Site Location: Near the southern most inflow to Goose Lake

UTM: NAD 83, Zone 13W 434,269 E 7,269,719 N


BM12 100.00 Bolt in rock ~45m northwest of the station

BM1-N 99.529 Bolt in rock 2m from BM 12

BM2-N 99.222 Bolt in rock 2m from BM1-N


Operating Periods:


2012 June 7 – Sep 14

2013 June 1- Sep 15 Installed BMs 1-N and 2-N

General Comments:

• Relatively deep channel

• During lowest flows, preferable to measure discharge 50m upstream

• Wadeable under most conditions



Looking across the channel at the monitored reach. High flows on

this date resulted in flooded grass near the banks. June 1, 2013.

Plan View of Hydrometric Station WL-H1 Site Photo

WL-H1

Flow

Direction

Page 1 of 1

Appendix 1.9. Station Information Sheet for Hydrometric Station REFB-H1

Site ID: REFB-H1 Drainage Area (km2): 5.3

Site Location: Near the outflow of Reference Lake B

UTM: NAD 83, Zone 13W 442,573 E 7,257,794 N


BM10 100.000 Bolt ~10m west of the data logger

BM44 99.972 Bolt ~5m south of BM10

BM48 100.111 Bolt ~ 6m west of BM44


Operating Periods:


2012 June 9 – Sep 13

2013 June 6 – Sep 16

General Comments:

• Ephemeral stream

• Soft bed (becomes very muddy following spring thaw)




Looking downstream at the monitored reach under moderate flow

conditions. September 16, 2013.

Plan View of Hydrometric Station REFB-H1 Site Photo

REFB-H1

Flow Direction

Page 1 of 1

Appendix 1.10. Station Information Sheet for Hydrometric Station TIA-H1

Site ID: TIA-H1 Drainage Area (km2): 5.0

Site Location: On the proposed TIA outflow channel near the DS boundary

UTM: NAD 83, Zone 13W 431, 074 E 7,273105 N


BM 6 100.000 Bolt in bedrock left bank DS of station

BM 7 100.075 Bolt in bedrock in line with station

BM 8 100.063 Bolt in bedrock US of station

Transducer: PT2X Logger: Self-Contained

Operating Period:

2013 June 5 – Sep 12 Established on June 5, 2013

General Comments:

• Very boulder channel with significant (near 100%) subsurface low flows

• Significant above surface flow only at freshet and in late season.




Low angle view looking downstream towards the station. Under

moderate flow conditions. Much of the flow has retreated into the

subsurface. June 16, 2013

Plan View of Hydrometric Station TIA-H1 Site Photo

Flow Direction

Transducer

Location

Page 1 of 1

Appendix 1.11. Station Information Sheet for Hydrometric Station UM-H1

Site ID: UM-H1 Drainage Area (km2): 4.1

Site Location: At the outflow of Umwelt Lake

UTM: NAD 83, Zone 13W 429,166 E 7,270,648 N


BM 62 100.000 Bolt on left bank 3m downstream of station

BM 63 101.359 Rebar on station set-up

BM 64 101.111 Rebar on right bank in line with station

BM 65 100.747 Rebar on left bank upstream of station

Transducer: PT-2X Logger: Self-contained

Operating Period:


General Comments:

• Shallow and moderately wide channel with side channels US and DS of station


• Cobble bed with shallow grass banks (gradient = 1%)

• Access by helicopter or on foot from GL-H2.


Low angle oblique view looking downstream at the channel section

under high flow conditions. The station is shown on the left bank.

June 16, 2013.

Plan View of Hydrometric Station UM-H1 Site Photo

UM-H1

Flow

Direction

Page 1 of 1

Appendix 1.12. Station Information Sheet for Hydrometric Station WP-H1

Site ID: WP-H1 Drainage Area (km2): 17.6

Site Location: Wasp Lake Outflow

UTM: NAD 83, Zone 13W 431,087N 7,274,467E


BM 3 100.000 Bolt in bedrock on left bank 3m DS of station



Transducer: PT-2X Logger: Self-contained

Operating Period:


General Comments:

• Narrow, well confined channel with stable control.

• Pool-riffle morphology with bedrock banks and a cascade 15m DS.

• Wadeable under all conditions.

• Access by helicopter.


Low angle oblique view looking downstream at the channel section

under low flow conditions. The station is shown on the left bank.

August 19, 2013.

Plan View of Hydrometric Station WP-H1 Site Photo

Pressure

Transducer

location

Flow

Direction

Documents

Figure A5-14 Annual Hydrograph at KL-H1 Hydrometric ...backriverproject.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/... · Back River Project Environmental Baseline Study